I disagreed with Napolitano on the Elian Gonzales case, but here I’m with him 100%: Get a freakin’ warrant!!!

Cheers,

Comment by Keltoi — February 19, 2008 @ 2:28 pm

Considering “your” (I consider your “we” and my “your” the group of people who only knows a clumsy warmongering way of do things, glad to know you consider one of them, given the fact you cheerlead so hard for “the team”) direct actions have killed millions of innocents.

I’d add that not only is the embargo a questionable cold-war McCarthyism time tactic, but it has been an instrumental force in isolating Cuba and keeping the country in poverty. A systemic attempt to starve the country.

As such, rather immoral.

Comment by Evil Spaniard — February 19, 2008 @ 1:53 pm

I know, when we supported Saddam, we were evil. When we removed Saddam, we were evil. We’re just evil- simple.

Yours is an attempt to use the moral capital earned by the USA in the WWII to save the Neocon Cabinet’s sorry ass. And, speaking of imaginary worlds, everybody has fantasies, but we live in the real world.

I think, on balance, we have done more to promote human rights than we have to crush them, but it is probably not an argument that can be proven either way.

Comment by Keltoi — February 19, 2008 @ 1:35 pm

More relativism. A “Good” country doesn’t promote and help dictatures to control countries. Ask the victims of these dictatures if they are happy (if they are alive, of course) thinking of the USA providing intelligence, money and weapons to their torturers.

And can be perfectly counted, from the “liberation” of the Phillipinnes from Spain (an occupation of 50 years and thousands of deaths of Phillippine freedom fighters), to Chile, Nicaragua, Grenada, etc.

“Today should mark the end of a dark era in Cuba’s history. Fidel Castro’s stepping down is an essential first step, but it is sadly insufficient in bringing freedom to Cuba.

Cuba’s future should be determined by the Cuban people and not by an anti-democratic successor regime. The prompt release of all prisoners of conscience wrongly jailed for standing up for the basic freedoms too long denied to the Cuban people would mark an important break with the past. It’s time for these heroes to be released.”

Well said.

Comment by Jason Misogynist Hendler — February 19, 2008 @ 1:39 pm

AND another bold prediction from one who incorrectly guessed the results of 2006. But now, he’s added “failure” in case he’s wrong, again.
Funny thing is, failure is subjective. Therefore, a Democrat President could be a failure in JMH’s clueless eyes because the speed limit in Florida was lowered.
By the way JMH, how come you’ve never answered me this:
Why did you remove your picture on MySpace after it was discovered by btruthful/republicans hate facts? Are you that ashamed of yourself, or your Ivy league education at Stanford?

You can’t see that mere hyping is going to cause Dems either a big loss in the election, or a big failure in office, just like Pelosi and Reid are suffering now?

Comment by toasterhead — February 19, 2008 @ 12:48 pm

Point taken. I just thought Juan was overstating our “crusher of human rights” status a tad. If you believe that, you also have to believe that the world would be a better place if the US did not exist. I think, on balance, we have done more to promote human rights than we have to crush them, but it is probably not an argument that can be proven either way.

Liberty Iraq style? Oh, noes!

News from yesterday, but worth reading and watching today:

Clinton, Obama Surrogates Debate Science Policy :
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20080217/pl_cq_politics/politics2672884

Curiously, Republican candidates didn’t assist to the science debate.

Wealth may not lead to health:
http://www.yahoo.com/s/812107

Report Links Health Insurance Status With Cancer Care:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/acs/20071220/hl_acs/report_links_health_insurance_status_with_cancer_care;_ylt=Ajmh6fbSgHnK3_n.VRE00KGs0NUE

Aussies: Kyoto should have been ratified :
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080218/ap_on_re_au_an/australia_environment;_ylt=Ar3ANLyLS_TLd902mEayYoys0NUE

Jeez, talk about a strawman defense.

NO ONE wants a world ruled by Hitler or Stalin. But no one wants a world ruled by the American military forces either. Well, maybe Bush and the Heritage Foundation want that, but the rest of the world doesn’t.

Comment by Keltoi — February 19, 2008 @ 12:35 pm

I won’t disagree that Nazism, imperialism, and fascism needed to be defeated in Europe and the Pacific. However, it does muddy the victory a bit to see that U.S. imperialism took its place in the 50 years after the war.

And the heirs of Stalin included reformers like Gorbachev and Yeltsin, so who knows what would have happened in the Soviet case had we not used so many countries as third-world proxies.

Comment by Marie — February 19, 2008 @ 12:33 pm

Is it counting up or down?

Comment by toasterhead — February 19, 2008 @ 12:31 pm

Well, we will just have to disagree. If you think a world ruled by the heirs of Hitler and Stalin would be more just and humane than what we have now, go ahead, but it doesn’t bear up to the smell test, IMHO.

Nice.

With creeps like this in our own country, who need

Comment by Keltoi — February 19, 2008 @ 12:15 pm

Champions of Human Rights? I think not. Each of these victories came at great human cost, and much of that cost borne by innocent third parties. I won’t get into a debate the pros and cons of the firebombing of Dresden or the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the atrocities committed in the name of winning the Cold War (and in securing healthy profits for U.S. multinationals) are beyond debate.

The “victory” against the Soviet Union was accomplished after overthrowing or disappearing dozens of leftist governments and installing rightist dictators, supporting terrorist groups in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East, and plunging billions of people into debt slavery under the Breton Woods regimes.

The United States is a “hero” in much the same way that a maverick loose-cannon cop who blows up an entire elementary school to kill one bad guy is a “hero.”

Comment by Juan C. — February 19, 2008 @ 11:42 am

It is very hard to let that statement pass, Juan. Alas, it is a bit early in the day for a review of the last 2 centuries where the US has done both great and terrible things.

Anglo-Americans legal evolution, along with French Philosophes, are primarily responsible for the very emergence of the concept of human rights. Were it not for the numerous landmark legal documents of Anglo-American jurisprudence (Magna Carta, English Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution) “human rights” would not have come to be valued by ANY government.

The defeat of the Axis and the Soviet Union also makes the U.S. one of the greatest and most valiant Champions of Human Rights in Western History.

Good answer. My question was a little provokative, because the US has been a questionable force, seeking to conquer everything since Jefferson. There is no good and bad side, that’s an simplistic view that’s been used as propaganda, and it is so laughable that is amazing so many people fall for it.

It is very likely that any other citizen in the world, will laugh at the question: Is your country one of the good guys? If he has common sense, he will answer: I know I’m a nice guy… Countries are not moral agents, therefore they can’t be good or bad. Now policies can be good or bad according to its consequences. And when it comes to foreign policy, US stands with Spain and Britain as the worst human right’s crusher in Western History.

This has nothing to do with being proud of being from one country or not. I’m all for people saying they are proud of their country…but I think it is meaningless because it is a subjective argument. It’s like asking: do you love your family? Well, sometimes they are a pain in the ass, but I love them. But I don’t go killing people, because I love my family.

So my opinion is that statements like: I’m proud to be an American is that they are empty and I use them when I don’t have arguments. The problem with this kind of arguments is that they leave out any possibility of debate and discussion of policies, which are the important part.