Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
So now he gets to be the juristic Village Bicycle?
Like I said...let them go and wait with the marshmellows until it crashes and burns.
I'm actually waiting for Colbert to write and perform the hymn ob Becktopia.
edited 15th Jan '13 4:49:25 AM by 3of4
"You can reply to this Message!"This is exactly the sort of thing that, if told to the public at the time, probably would not have been an issue.
"I'm sorry to say that my duties as Governor, and other personal obligations for the other members of my family/staff, are preventing me from taking adequate care of my rescue dog Reagan. He wouldn't attack anyone, but did not like anyone carrying anything around him and would scare the cleaners and visitors to death."
I'm sure there is a better way to say it (I'm too honest to be a good political writer), but I would have a harder time blaming him if he just openly stated it.
Sure, the timing is still "interesting", but still...
edited 15th Jan '13 6:17:52 AM by Belian
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!The people of Pakistan should look at the violence they are visiting on their own children. We're trying to stop it.
edited 15th Jan '13 7:12:56 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
With more violence.
Becuase we will free the shit out of those tribal villages.
also, they removed the traditionaly America Fuck yea video and now I can only find versions that look more patriotic than satirical...
Edit: found a short part of it. Lets hope it doesnt get removed like the other one..
edited 15th Jan '13 7:25:33 AM by Baff
I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.Look, it's pretty simple. Pakistan has been a faction ridden hellhole with people getting blown to bits or shot for being on the wrong side of the religious divide for decades, long before the United States finally and belatedly took action in Afghanistan and the Pakistani tribal areas. Blaming all of what is happening in that country on America is just pathologically stupid.
And if that current turbulent priest that is causing all the rioting in Karachi just now gets his wish and takes over power things will only get worse.
Well then let themselves blow up themselves.
It doesnt justify the United States literally blowing children up.
Also, if you think American intervention will make things better then there is little use for this conversation.
Its imparctical and immoral. The United States desitabilizes the region and then uses it as an excuse to bomb people, which in turn desistabilizes the region. All the unrest in the middle east its a self fufilling prophecy that the Pentagon created 50 years ago.
I am amused to see all this "liberals" using classical neocon logic.
And whats so bad about this priest? Should we blown him up to because those dirty muslims dont have a right to decide their form of government?
Perhaps we should topple the Pakistani government and put in power a modernizing figure, like the Shah. I am sure that will go well.
edited 15th Jan '13 7:36:12 AM by Baff
I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.I'd be happy to leave entirely and let them kill each other. Just as long as they don't then come over here and try to kill us, like in 2001. You know as well as I do that Congress would never allow that.
If you're going to be there, however, then you need to do the job right so we don't have to deal with this shit over and over.
edited 15th Jan '13 10:35:07 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Then why didnt we invade Saudi Arabi.
By far the most conservative muslim state in the region that by far contributed the greatest amount of power or finance to the terrorists?
Or the CIA that trained Osama Bin Laden
Or HSBC which laundered money for them.
The war on terrorism, is not aimed at defeating Al Qaeda, good job at swallowing the propaganda.
I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
Proposal that works better, please?
Which the Pakistani government clearly can't manage, since there's been several suggestions that their intelligence service was providing a 'handy guide to possible targets'.
Pakistan also hasn't broken off diplomatic relations with the US, which again suggests they're not that annoyed with the unmanned bombs being fired at the Taliban. In fact, the thing that seems to annoy them most is that the US won't let them play with drones of their very own.
(How on earth do you invade a bank?)
edited 15th Jan '13 7:40:20 AM by Bluesqueak
It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.Um, that was probably us. Though it wasn't deliberate.
It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.You see? There you go with the paternalistic attitute again.
News flash, the U.S is not the world police.
Solution? Let the tribal leaders rule the tribal lands and if that involves the taliban then so be it.
You know why Saudi Araba is a tribal hole instead of tribal hell hole? Because we dont go around bombing their villages.
Sure. But british influence nowdays is negligable, besides the region would be much more stable if the U.S had kept its hands off from the 50s onwards.
Sort of like South Asia turned out after the Americans lost Vietnam.
edited 15th Jan '13 7:51:10 AM by Baff
I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.@Baff: The United States is indeed at least partially responsible for putting these dictators and human rights violators in power in the first place. Plus we come over there and buy all this oil which funds the wealth imbalances that allow for oppression to exist.
It is our responsibility to deal with it. I can't say that we've been doing a great job, but as a country that prides itself on being a bastion of morality and human rights (despite often failing at those goals ourselves), we need to put our money where our mouths are.
That said, we can only do so much, and what is the point of invading every single Middle-Eastern country that oppresses its citizens? We can't fix their culture. So it's kind of a lose-lose: leave them alone and they send terrorists to blow up our planes and buildings; attack them and get accused of human rights violations.
They are the ones using human shields, not us. If you want to blame anyone, blame conservatives for setting up this fight-or-flight dichotomy, the military-industrial complex for making bombs preferable to, say, knockout gas, and, oh yeah, maybe the culture that thinks that strapping plastic explosive to a kid and sending him to blow up a school is a reasonable way to wage war.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Bastion of morality and human rights, thats laughable. Keep telling yourself that.
We can not continue this discussion because we are clearly in compleatly different places when it comes to our starting points.
Our responsability? So America´s responsability is the world right? You are, our benign father isnt that it? You will choose and decide was best for us, the rest of the world, isnt that so?
I am not defending tribal cultures, I am just saying that they wouldnt have the need to strap bombs to kids and we wouldnt have the needs to blowup said kids if we left them alone in the first place.
And you keep talking about human shields. Attending a wedding or a funeral is not technically using a human shield you know?
edited 15th Jan '13 7:56:19 AM by Baff
I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.@sledgesaul
The only way you can target precisely is by using a squaddie, on the ground. And even they don't get it right all the time: blue on blue, shadowy figure that seems to be holding a gun (oh, damn, it was an eleven year old playing with a stick).
The only way to get a squaddie on the ground would be either for: a)The Pakistani army to pull their fingers out and actually do something. Which they don't want to do; the tribal regions are notoriously scary places. Or b) the US/UK to invade Pakistan.
b)Invading Pakistan would be breathtakingly stupid. That leaves c) shoot at people from a distance. And with c), even if you aim at military targets, other people will get in the way.
It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.

I'd say let him. What better way to deconstruct that ide isvby example?
Maybe if Becktopia actually has to ask for (government?) help at some point, it just vanishes in a black hole...hypocrisy can reach a critical mass, can't it?
edited 15th Jan '13 12:50:14 AM by 3of4
"You can reply to this Message!"