Posts by Angus Robertson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: "Orderly transition" in #Egypt, in reply to Simon Grigg,
For most of the post war era they've not wanted to compete, they've just wanted markets, cheap labor [sic], and political dominance.
The USA maximises its markets when other places are more free and more democratic, because America doesn't make much anything for poor people.
America is the dominant democracy, its political dominance is accelerated by spreading democracy.
The point about cheap labour is correct only when that labour produces something America wants. Most typically oil, or in the case of Egypt (and possibly Israel/Palestine) the transport of trade (including a lot of oil) through Suez.
-
Hard News: "Orderly transition" in #Egypt, in reply to Christiaan,
The good thing about America is that its strategic interest does align with democracy more than it doesn't. It gets trumped by greater strategic desires for things like a stable oil supply, but mostly America is better off if other places are freer and more democratic.
-
I disagree. The US and European leaders have effectively cut Mubarak loose; Key is still praising him.
Its a loop thing. The US and Europe have spent 30 years providing support to Mubarak's repression of Egypt; NZ hasn't. We are always going to lag our European and American allies as they decide how to proceed.
-
Hard News: Holiday Open Thread 2:…, in reply to Sam F,
Angus, you appear to have found a level of superb ideological balance where neither those alleging “war criminal” nor those alleging “secret Muslim” have more credibility than the other.
I am not asking you to compare their credibility, Sam. I agree with you, claims of torture are more credible than what the Birthers et al have.
What I'd like to know is who thinks calling someone a Muslim portrays more hatred of the individual than calling them a torturer & war criminal?
But if you'd like to try somethingelse more credible - socialist vs. torturer & war criminal - is also relevent.
-
I’m not an official type with the power to say my conclusions are official, but I can construct a syllogism starting from them there available facts.
I suspect you can too.
I could, but one of those isn't a verified fact.
They admit waterboarding people Angus.
Politicians lie, or tell half truths, in ways that appeal to their voters.
In 2004 when GWB wished to be re-elected he needed to appear to be really tough on terrorism, saying that he endorsed waterboarding makes him appear unbelievably tough on terrorists. This appeals to the significant amount of his base that uncaring about what happens to terrorists and it appeals to those independents who are scared. It also gets the namby pamby liberals behaving all namby pamby and demonstrates to the American people that the Dems are not a serious about combating terrorism.
GWB knows that torture is illegal and knows that torture (though illegal) appeals to Jack Bauer America. So he gets crack legalistas and interrogation experts to find the most aggressive techniques allowable under law.
GWB had reason to mislead the voters on how aggressive he was being. GWB is a politician.
They admit waterboarding people Angus.
This is something a politician (or his team) said when they had every reason to be not entirely truthful. The meaning you read into it is probably untrue.
-
And you know this how, Angus?
Because American politicians like embarassing the opposition, they have inquiries of everything from were you or have you ever been a member of the... to what is the meaning of is.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid had the opportunity to get Congress making official inquiries back in 06. Nothing much eventuated. No legislative agenda and no need to keep the President on side, but still nothing happened.
Then Obama got into power and again nothing. Only one thing stops a politician from embarassing thier opponents and that is the potential to embarass themselves.
The man had ulterior motives for not pursuing this, not least being a legislative agenda.
He needed the GOP on board to push through health care reforms which attracted no GOP support? How could a distraction from health care reform be a bad thing?
-
See Starr report, Nixon etc.
The Starr report was an independent inquiry. Nixon was investigated by a Senate Committee. Evidence was produced and challenged to be verified or rejected.
The "War Crimes" have if GWB been 'investigated" by some people on the internet.
Where is the independent inquiry? Where is the Senate Committee? Where are the verifiable facts?
-
Obama decided that no good would come of [punishing war criminals] and decided to move on.
Seems farfetched. I don't believe he would do such a thing.
So much more likely that his team looked for the evidence and found insufficient proof.
It caused a great deal of dissent and upset amongst some of those who had worked towards Obama's election.
Of course. Those people had to make an unpleasent choice. Either they have won an election for a guy who's moral compass reads "war crimes - no biggee" or that "war criminal thing" they have been saying about GWB for 6 years was wrong. Feeling letdown by Obama was the face saving choice.
-
For one there is objective, accepted fact (torturing PoW’s is a war crime, and there was torture of PoW’s in Iraq at the hands of US military and CIA personnel), and some degree of evidence that would support at least an initial court hearing.
Eric Holder (and the Democrat run US Senate oversight comittees) have had unfettered access to all actual proof that exists. There has been no court hearing.
-
You really don't get irony, do you, Angus?
Two unsubstantiable claims side by side.
The US President is:
- a practicing Muslim.
- a murderer, a torturer, a war criminal.Supposedly we now have hate filled rhetoric in place of the civilised debate of just a few years ago.
I see irony.