Comments on: Stopping the Trafficking

By: mythago

mythago — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:04:32 +0000

mythago, the press release goes into great detail about the differences between the countries. It doesn’t leave anything to the imagination, does it?

It goes into the detail that the Administration thinks is relevant to justify its decisions. It also explains, revealingly, that we excuse trafficking in one because of the War on Terror and sanction it in another because conditions are so terrible for the people there. I’m not following.

By: mpowell

mpowell — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 23:11:00 +0000

Sorry for this 2nd post. I needed to repost b/c part of my post was ommitted due to formatting issues.

Okay- I’m pretty sympathetic to the argument that the Bush administration does a poor job of deciding who gets sanctions and who doesn’t. BUT, I am also pretty tired of the argument that goes like this: look at this hypocritical gov’t, why do they sanction this country for (insert immoral activity) but not this other one? There are always competing concerns. Many of them are legitimate. Being a strategic ally is definitely a big one. Whether someone ought to be a strategic ally is another question. But you have to make the argument.

By: mpowell

mpowell — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 23:09:11 +0000

Okay- I’m pretty sympathetic to the argument that the Bush administration does a poor job of deciding who gets sanctions and who doesn’t. BUT, I am also pretty tired of the argument that goes like this: look at this hypocritical gov’t, why do they sanction this country for but not this other one? There are always competing concerns. Many of them are legitimate. Being a strategic ally is definitely a big one. Whether someone ought to be a strategic ally is another question. But you have to make the argument.

By: Jim Miller

Jim Miller — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:09:21 +0000

Jon Mandle – Your argument interests me, but it seems incomplete. I hope you will fill it in by answering two questions:

1. What nation has done more than the United States to end slavery while Bush has been president?

2. Did Bill Clinton (or any other recent president) do more to end slavery while he was president than Bush has done while he has been president?

As always, references, especially linked references, would be helpful.

By: jet

jet — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:30:32 +0000

dave heasman,
Are you on crack? My post was in response to Rea’s and was on topic. Yours on the other hand is less so.

And claiming that anyone is “condoning slavery” or using the scary quotes for insurgency do kind of tip your hand.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:29:18 +0000

mythago, the press release goes into great detail about the differences between the countries. It doesn’t leave anything to the imagination, does it? We’re not left to wonder, is the war on terror the difference between, say, Cuba and Saudi Arabia? The WaPost article said that no explanation was offered. A straightforward and obvious explanation was offered, and the WaPost just didn’t bother to read it. I’ve actually shown it to you, so I’m not sure what your excuse is. A reference to the original post, which supposes wrongly that a refusal to impose sanctions is tantamount to striking a nation from the State Department list of countries with unacceptable policies in this matter, isn’t helpful.

Dave, you’re a nitwit.

By: dave heasman

dave heasman — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 08:13:51 +0000

“dave, what on earth are you talking about? ”

I’m talking about dear old jet, trolling away, trying to move the issue from his and your pals’ condoning slavery to some bee in his bonnet about the Iraq “insurgency”. Instead of your & his pals condoning slavery.

By: mythago

mythago — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 05:53:43 +0000

thomas, given that the point of the original post was that the White House has provided no credible explanation for the difference, citing the White House’s press release justifying its less-than-credible behavior is not exactly convincing.

By: Jon H

Jon H — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 05:32:39 +0000

It’s just a variation of the flypaper theory.

Let Michael Jackson molest the kids over there, so he won’t do it over here.

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 01:01:11 +0000

Thomas,
I’ve read a few newspaper articles on it, and some other discussions. My impression is that this, like many other such measures, does do some good (I didn’t say that it doesn’t) but that it also does a lot of harm in that it’s clear that we’re not serious about what we say. We’re happy to be hard on countries that we don’t need anything from, and we let the others walk. That’s hard to fit with the idea that we’re acting from principle. It is certain to make the countries that felt really threatend feel like they are dealing with bullies rather than people acting from principle. What’s a sham about the system is the way we use it, when we know very well that we’ll not put sanctions on Saudi Arabia. They know it and everyone else does too (even you). So, saying “if you don’t do x, we’ll do y” when we have no intention of doing y is a sham. Don’t you think?

By: Thomas

Thomas — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 00:43:55 +0000

Matt, as far as this being a “sham”, note this from the same release I linked to above: “It is important that six of the fourteen Tier 3 countries took actions that averted the need for the President to make a determination regarding sanctions and waivers.”

troutsky, that’s just bizarre. Have you read anything about this matter at all? I mean, other than the intentionally misleading post above?

What sort of Mafia protection racket involves the Mafia making the payments to the protected?

dave, what on earth are you talking about? If your suggestion is that no administration should ever decline to impose sanctions on a regime that it has found to be deficient in this area, even if there may be other interests of the nation at issue, then that’s fair enough, but I suppose your quarrel begins with those who drafted and approved a law allowing for such an exception. Should we see who those people are? Let’s start naming names on that principle, and we’ll see where the game comes out!

By: dave heasman

dave heasman — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 23:01:36 +0000

“Okay, me first.

…but coalition sources believe most suicide bombers are either Saudis or Yemenis, with small numbers from a dozen other Arab and African states…”

Brilliant trollwork, jet. Everyone’s now forgotten that the regime you love doesn’t give a shit about slavery. Hurrah for jet, he wants us to ignore his friends’ condoning slavery.

By: jet

jet — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 19:30:33 +0000

Rea, Okay, me first.

...but coalition sources believe most suicide bombers are either Saudis or Yemenis, with small numbers from a dozen other Arab and African states.

By: jet

jet — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 19:23:04 +0000

Rea,
It also appears my statement suffers from the same defect as yours. You first.

By: rea

rea — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 18:44:26 +0000

“I said it was primarily the foreign insurgents who are killing hundreds of civilians, not that foreign insurgents are the majority of insurgents.”

Well, but that statement suffers from the same defect as your previous statement: it’s utterly unsupported by evidence. Kindly link to a reputable source, other than yourself, who supports that claim.