[Osx-nutters] AHMADINEJAD

[David Cake]

At 11:28 AM -0400 27/9/06, Jeffrey Hergan wrote:
>>That sentence is so broadly phrased that I don't know what you 
>>mean.  Generally what I hear on the left is "don't hate them just 
>>because they're Muslim".  That doesn't mean that criticisms of 
>>specific acts, or of specific trends in Islam, are out of place.  
>>It's entirely consistent to say, "beheading as a punishment for 
>>marital infidelity is wrong" and, "a lot of these right-wingers are 
>>just expressing their own religious bigotry".
>
>OK.  I think I can be more clear.  There is nothing that Muslims 
>could do to each other that left end liberals think would justify US 
>intervention.

	I don't think thats strictly true - but I think its true 
enough that there is nothing Muslims could do to each other that is 
valid under their law and international law would justify US 
intervention.
	Situations where the rule of law breaks down justifies.

>>>I wouldn't say those countries are 'beloved' but they certainly 
>>>are poster children of the liberal elite, used in criticisms of 
>>>the right wingers.
>>
>>This is the part that's just silly.  One of the biggest criticisms 
>>used by liberals against the right wingers is that the Right is too 
>>tied to Saudi Arabia and too foolish with regard to North Korea and 
>>Iran.  That doesn't make those countries poster children in any way 
>>shape or form.  "These countries are bad, and you're fucking up how 
>>you deal with them", is not a "poster child" argument.
>
>I don't think that's what the left says, though.  I hear arguments 
>like: "The US is the worst offender with regard to nuclear arms, so 
>we have no right to say anything to Iran or N Korea."  And "We 
>should treat nations like Iran and N Korea as soveriegn countries 
>worthy of respect, even if they plainly say that we are evil and 
>should be eradicated like the infidel scum we are."

	The basic point here is simply that the left think the US 
should respect international law, and think the right is grossly 
hypcritical on the issue and should be castigated for it. This 
doesn't mean they like Iran or N. Korea, it means they disliked the 
neocons cowboy the-US-scoffs-at-international-law attitude, and Iran 
and N.Korea are just the examples that come up.

At 12:09 PM -0400 27/9/06, Patrick Coskren wrote:
>It sounds like you're defining "liberals" as people mightily to the 
>left of Clinton.  Okay, that's fine, and you're probably right about 
>them, but I'd argue that such people are far enough out of the 
>mainstream that they aren't really relevant to much of anything.

	And this discussion started with Guy using the term 'liberal 
media elite' rather than just liberal. Conspiracy theorists aren't 
the elite.
	Cheers
		Dave