Are You Kidding Me?Ahmadinejad and Putinneed to go on the road together if they're going to keep up the comedy act. They might make a couple of bucks beyond what they're stealing from their own countries.
Dude is TOTALLY unhinged. His country is so tough? Declare war, mofo. Lets throw down!
Posted by: swj719 at 28 February 2008@17:22:13 (xNyOl)
I would much rather see their own people take care of this. Many are tired of the Radical Islamists. We don't need to do more than laugh over this, it's more like the ant climbing the leg of an elephant and promising to be gentle. (Not an original line, but applicable)
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 28 February 2008@17:26:50 (tarqT)
Which guy do you think is seriously deranged? I find them both kind of kooky. Of course, neither can hold a candle to crazy uncle Kim in North Korea.
Posted by: Mari at 29 February 2008@22:03:05 (cENZi)
Mari!! I was just catching up at the Wheel and about to jump back on. Three martinis huh? Never tried those, too fancy-schmanzee for me.
Kim Jong Il is a nut, but Ahmadinejad is truly dangerous. North Korea can be deterred, especially when the U.S., China, and South Korea all work together. Ahmadinejad wants a world war because he believes it will bring about a global caliphate and universal worship of Allah in the Islamic fashion. He really can't be deterred, only delayed.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 29 February 2008@22:21:22 (tarqT)
Another Mahdi Army Ceasefire
Muqtada Al-Sadr has ordered his Mahdi Army militia to observe another six-month ceasefire in Iraq. Isn't this the same guy who was indicted for murder and then hid in Iran while his thugs got stomped by Coalition Forces?
Still Want to Start Up the Cold War Again? Part II
From the AP:
WASHINGTON - A missile launched from a Navy ship successfully struck a dying
U.S. spy satellite passing 130 miles over the Pacific on Wednesday, a defense
This is what Putin threatened to restart the Cold War over? I don't think so. Right now we still don't know if the mission was accomplished, destroying the tank containing 1,000 pounds of a toxic fuel called hydrazine, but the fact that we can hit a satellite like this is amazing to me. We're still the big boy on the block and a cowardly bully like Putin shouldn't forget it.
I don't think this is actually why Putin is threatening to restart the Cold War; I suspect it's an excuse rather than a cause.
At the end of the day, i think this generation of Russian leaders look at the world the way they were taught to when they were kids, through the lens of the cold war; it's a rare man who can overcome the indoctrination received as a child, and it's unreasonable to expect an entire national leadership to have that strength of character.
Posted by: aphrael at 21 February 2008@13:47:46 (qUuc4)
I agree, although for a different reason. I think he uses the missile-defense shield, satellite shootdown, Iraq War, and anything else he can blame to deflect attention from his own attempts to consolidate power. He misses the personal power associated with the Soviet Union and wants Russia to reconsolidate under his perpetual rule. Just my opionion though, it could be for humanitarian reasons...
Wonderful to see you here, thanks for stopping by.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 21 February 2008@17:37:08 (Q5ggV)
Since the National Elections in 2000, has there been any
election in the world that has escaped accusations of corruption?In Mexico,
former Soviet Republic in Georgia, Iraq, Armenia, Russia,
our own elections in 2004 and 2006, among many others, there have been accompanying
cries of “foul”.While a few accusations
may appear credible (or at least sincere), most accusations of fraud or
corruption seem to be made without a shred of evidence.Sometimes these accusations even come before the actual
election.Is this becoming standard
practice just because the losing side wants to disrupt or discredit the
results?Do they hope to win concessions
from the winners or the courts?Or is
there something more?
Two major systems that hate democracy are the Socialists and
the Radical Islamists.Both are failed
systems that promote misery and consolidate power in a select few who have no
regard for the freedoms of others.Is it
possible that one (or both) of these groups routinely contest election results
in order to undermine democracy as a system?I believe this is already happening.
After creating controversy where none rightly exists, Socialists and
Radical Islamists then point to that manufactured controversy as proof that
Democracy is unworkable.The other thing we keep seeing is attacks on voters during elections. Terror, death, and discord all to undermine Democracy. We will see
more and more of all this over the next few years as they continue to attack our
government and way of life.The
Socialist and Islamic Radical systems cannot outperform Democracy at any
level.They can only try to tear it down
hoping to fill the resulting power vacuum.Creating discord and lowering confidence in the Democratic process is
just one more way of attacking their much-stronger enemies… us.
This is one of the reasons i'm uncomfortable with the debate about the use of computerized voting systems in the United States.
I mean, on the one hand ... i'm a computer programmer, and I work as a polling place officer. I know from my understanding of software that these things simply aren't secure in any meaningful sense, I'm aware as a precinct officer of how surreptitious access to them might be gained, and my impresison of the nature of political systems is that, if the opportunity to abuse the system exists, someone will eventually take advantage of it.
On the other hand, there's no evidence whatsoever that advantage *has* been taken. So how do I argue that these systems are too risky to use (which I believe), while keeping that argument entirely in the theoretical, and without undermining belief in democracy itself?
It's an astonishingly difficult thing to do.
Posted by: aphrael at 21 February 2008@13:54:22 (qUuc4)
I don't think we'll ever have a foolproof system of voting, computer-assisted or otherwise. As you say, if the opportunity for abuse exists, some lowlife (my word) will take advantage of it. We do the best we can with what we have (paraphrasing John Paul Jones). Good faith skeptics are invaluable to minimizing that abuse. They point out potential flaws, usually (if they are truly "good-faith") suggesting fixes.
My concerns are not so much with them as the intentional undermining of our faith in the idea of democracy. We've seen too many times where objections and cries of "foul" are pro-forma and expected, completely without evidence. Doing this as a political strategy, IMHO, is reprehensible. I've seen it on both sides of the aisle within our system (politicos who believe that by casting doubt on the legitimacy of the process, they can limit an opponents' effectiveness), and from outside our system (claiming election shenanigans routinely just so they can point to their own claims as proof that the system is corrupt.)
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 21 February 2008@17:47:57 (Q5ggV)
For those of you coming here and have never seen me comment on other blogs, here is something from Patterico's that might interest you. Since we did this, I've been gratified to see how much has come out confirming my experiences.
Still Want to Start Up the Cold War Again?
Putin has been a thorn in our side since forever. Now, he wants to install a puppet President and keep power indefinitely as Prime Minister or somesuch. He has also threatened to restart the Cold War because of U.S. "provocations" like a defensive missile shield.
Perhaps this might help him reconsider? Yeah, of course it's a test. We're still ahead of you and will knock all your satellites from the sky. All your base are belong to us!
Sites are added to the Moronosphere and Gerbil Nation blogrolls by request. I got everyone on there who was there when they were made, so email me if you know of a new addition. Some of these are on the main blogroll as well and will remain duplicated.
The main blogroll is at my own discretion. I gratefully accept suggestions by email, but I don't do blogroll exchanges. If a site is there, it's because I personally recommend it. If it's one that is not updated often, check out the archives and you'll probably see why it's there. I will rarely remove a site from the main blogroll once it's there.
*rustle, rustle* **looks around empty thread** SQUEaK! entry
Comments are not moderated and users are not registered. This means that I have little to no control over who posts a comment or the content of that comment. Therefore, comments other than my own do not reflect any viewpoint of mine, no matter how long it appears as I will likely remove comments that cross the line of decency. If a comment is removed, a notation that the comment was there will be inserted. Any questions or concerns about posts, comments, copyright, or other issues may be addressed by emailing me at "stashiu3 AT gmail DOT com" replacing the AT with @ and DOT with a period. If that's too complicated, maybe you shouldn't be on the internet without supervision. Just sayin'
If you have suggestions for the blog, put them in a comment to the original welcome post, a comment to any other post, or email me at the contact below. Be well.
I am a Psychiatric Nurse who retired from the Army after 24 years total service. I started out as a Private E-1, made Sergeant E-5 in 23 months, then went to nursing school and ROTC to get commissioned. I am interested in politics where I lean heavily conservative, movies, music, and books. Hopefully you will enjoy what you see and come back often.
Stashiu3 AT gmail DOT com
(Replace the "AT" with "@" and the "DOT" with ".")