Anyone who visits the board is more than welcome to express his or her opinion. I love arguing with people who don't agree with me, provided there is some value to the argument. Telling me that my beliefs are wrong just isn't going to accomplish anything productive. Disagree all you want. Anyone who knows anything about sports, for example, knows that Cubs fans and White Sox fans don't exactly see eye-to-eye on everything. But as much as I'm not going to convince Schmidlap to change allegiences, or he to convince me to change, we can still discuss baseball.
Some other things to know about this blog:
1) We believe that the current administration has hurt this country in every way possible, and if we get our anger at that out with a little name calling, so be it.
There are indeed posts here which are pure invective, and none of us will apologize for that. What I wonder is why everyone isn't walking around in a rage.
2) There are posts which are an actual attempt to advance a discussion, and I expect you to recognize the difference.
3) Remember that if you're new here, we don't know your history, and you're jumping into the middle of a discussion. Therefore, please make sure your posts have some content. Merely attacking the posters on a blog won't accomplish anything except time wasting. You want to convince someone of something? Provide an argument. Give an option. Explain why that option is better, with data. Don't just throw crap at the board and hope it sticks to someone. If someone could prove that Bush isn't a worse president than, well, the rest, I'd be happy to see the data. But you gotta come with something.
4) Posts which are content-free, demonstrably false, or needlessly snarky will be removed. Note that this is not censorship - you're free to create your own blog and be as cranky as you want.
5) If you have a question about how someone here reacted to something that happened in the past, either (a) see if we posted about it or (b) ask. Don't assume that just because, say, I'm a liberal, that I loved everything Bill Clinton did, or that I've never seen a Republican worth anything. And we're all a little different here. Assuming things about people you don't know is remarkably insulting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
of you have sat, and perhaps thought, with us!
26 comments:
"Well, rwilymz, you are more than welcome to your opinion."
I seem to be welcome to yours, as well.
And frankly, I haven't given many OPINIONs here that were excised...
"There are indeed posts here which are pure invective, and none of us will apologize for that."
Yet I'm supposed to?...
"The current administration has hurt this country in every way possible"
uh HUH. There's many many things "this administration" has done which I personally don't like [my OPINION], and many things which are not supported by evidence [provable, and hence NOT opinion], and then there are the vastVastVAST majority of policy positions that "this administration" has taken which have factual evidence to support, but not an exclusive lock on factual evidence, and hence the disagreements on PURELY PARTISAN grounds.
I'm sorry that I happen to be better at parsing politics out of policy; I'm also sorry that I appear to be older, or at least wiser and more mature, than those who cannot get beyond their own set of facts and analysis thereof to understand that having policy disagreements does not mean that the "other side" is factually insupportible or consitutes gratuitous "harm".
"What I ask is that posts, especially if you're new here ... have some content."
Fine, and fair.
What is fair in return is that comments which point out the hypocricies of the person I'm responding to remain.
I find it crass tyranny that people deign to wag a sanctimonious finger at me for being "insulting" when disagreement with the local orthodoxy is the main sin I'm committing.
"You want to convince someone of something? Provide an argument. Give an option. Explain why that option is better, with data."
Go back and retreive the thumbnail history of middle-east politics that I first posted in response to Mr Rabble's "crap" that he threw "at the board and hope it sticks".
"If someone could prove that Bush isn't a worse president than, well, the rest, I'd be happy to see the data. But you gotta come with something."
No opinion. I'm a historian and military analyst, not a pop-shrink you'd find on Oprah. I'm not saying one way or another whether Bush is a better or worse president "than, well, the rest". That is an analytical position for the future to come up with.
What is NOT an analytical position, but factual commodity available to anyone who doesn't have half his brain turned off, is that Bush is doing nothing more than, and arguably considerably less than, other war presidents in the area of civil rights incursions.
That is FACT. Sorry. It's not debatable until the NYT uncovers the domestic Arab internment camps, the allowance of ex post facto [habeas corpus was done already by LIncoln], and a whole host of other unlegislated things.
Three things, and thanks for continuing the discussion.
1) If you want to post things discussing how much you dislike or hate some group of people, feel free - in your own blog. The fact is that many of the people who voted for Bush did so against their self-interest, and that's dumb.
2) Bush may be doing less in terms of violating civil rights than other war presidents. Fine. I'm not sure how torture, etc, fits into that, but let's accept that premise for a moment. Is that our standard? Not creating internment camps? That FDR did that was sickening, but I'm not going to let Bush get away with violating the 4th amendment just because it's less heinous. As I've said before, I'm one of those wacky liberals who's looking to make things better. I wasn't around to criticize FDR, but I'm here to let Bush know I don't find his behavior acceptable.
3) You did have a number of posts which included only the word "Cowards", and that doesn't add anything to the conversation. Who's the coward? About what?
So you are a "historian?"
May I inquire as to your historical training?
Troy St U
Been working for the past 20+ years on DoD contracts watching the history repeating.
These contracts deal with our war-planning/execution systems, logistics, transportation, related subjects.
I could email you my resume if you'd like...
Not on my resume -- since I don't want a job in DC for the State department, is my history background. Nor, also, my grad school/sociology.
Any other questions, counsellor?
The rules are simple.
Don't get personal, have substance and nothing gets deleted. OK?
Mr Magoo:
1] a] I don't "hate" anyone. I *do*, however, feel compelled to honesty, even if it's uncomfortable to the people hearing it or the person saying it.
b] I've got my own blog in which I collect my analytic essays: http://dblyelloline.blogspot.com/
c] "dumb" is in the eye of the disgusted beholder, primarily.
2] Define "torture", then describe the legal authority by which that definition is valid. I know the answer, as does almost anyone who was in the military and made a point to learn the answer -- in basic they only tell you, well, the basics.
I can go deep on the Geneva Conventions, since it's part of the stuff I do for a living...
Frankly, not one of the critics who spout off on it knows a lick.
This may be news to you, but "cranky conservatives" want "to make things better" too; the notion that there is a moral high-ground is the first fallacy of political discourse. The only thing that changes is the perspective of the speaker.
Having been subjected to the whims of political winds for 25+ years -- 20+ years DoD contractor, 4 military -- I can tell you with no fear of credible contradiction that there is no practical difference between the self-serving of the political parties. They all self-serve, and, honestly, the results of their self-service tends to be indistinguishable. They just play musical chairs while they change everything, and everyone ends up sitting in just about the same seats they had before.
3] A number of my responsese were eliminated for pointedly describing why they were facile.
we're starting from scratch here, R.
As we've said, the rules are simple. Feel free to stick around.
Yes, dumb is in the eye of the beholder, but voting for someone who is actively taking things away from you that are vital to your continued survival (consider the most recent House "budget cutting" bill), while saying that that person is making your life better, is someone in danger of being called dumb.
What is your definition of torture?
I have been accused, recently, of having a problem with my worldview because I think it's worthwhile to work to help as many people as possible. I know there are those on the right that are trying to do the same thing, and while we differ on methodology, I can respect that difference. What I don't respect is people telling me that it's not a worthwhile goal.
You may also notice that I can be a rampant idealist. I would never suggest that the Democratic party is doing a good job. What I want is for voters to force politicians to do a better job. I think it's possible, although hard.
Two Simple rules, eh, Pete?
Can I expect, then, that "personal" is more than a subjective, violate-the-orthodoxy thing? Or should I expect to continue to see such facile and juvenile things as "mouth-breathers in Idiot America", "McLiar/Vader administration", "Chimpy", "Drinky" and the ever-popular broad-brush of "redneck"?
And who defines your "substance"? Apparently reciting middle-eastern history, and its conjunction with western colonialism, wasn't "substantive, because it went away while the factually vacant comments which inspired it are still there.
Apparently relating military and foreign policy reality isn't "substantive" either, since those comments of mine are gone and the superficial "exit strategy" which prompted them remain.
Here's what *I'm* about guys: I've seen far more than any of you have in the inner workings of our political behemoth, and frankly, I know more about it than you. I don't necessarily like it any better than any of you, but this is my life work. I know the subject and you don't.
You are lawyers, and doctors, and indian chiefs, and probably very good ones. I don't go around redefining what you do and changing your realities to suit my desires; I expect nothing less in return.
As I said, R, we're starting from scratch. Simple rules. OK?
Admittedly, I do not work for the government, so I don't have an insider's view. Nor am I a medical doctor, nor do I play one on TV.
On the other hand, I am (a) very well educated (b) aware of the way politics affects my life directly. In nearly every way I can measure, President Bush has made things worse. He, and his cronies, have also found new and exciting ways to make things significantly worse than they were before. Bush isn't the first to be bad at his job, I'll grant you that, but he's the one screwing it up now, so he's the target of my criticism. If he's replaced by a Democrat who screws things up as well, I'll be the first in line to call them on it too. I have no patience left for people who are only out to make themselves more powerful, regardless of their political affiliation.
What is your definition of torture?
I do not have one; the US does. The Geneva Conventions prohibits torture, but does not define it. No supra-national body has the authority to define a concept and impose it on a sovereign nation without that sovereign nation's permission.
The US definition of torture is long and wordy -- like I am -- and chock full of loyyerese. It essentially prohibits the intentional infliction of permanently disfiguring or debilitating pain. ...with greater specificity.
Not covered in the definition of "torture" is dressing up prisoners as BDSM party-goers. Not covered in the definition of "torture" is insulting someone's religion or cultural sensibilities, by mishandling their holy books or using women who smear menstrual blood on the tables or chairs to interrogate the prisoners. Not included in the definition of "torture" is playing loud music, turning up, or down, the heat, making prisoners parade around naked or feeding them geritol for breakfast. "Rude" is not torture.
The GenCons prohibit torture, and require each nation to come up with their own definition of it -- and then uphold it. The McCain bill to "prohibit torture" is, frankly, little more than fart gas. We already prohibit torture. The fine interplay was probably choreographed for world consumption.
Now, because we prohibit torture does not mean we actually follow through in every instance. The strategic value of leaving a shred of doubt in the mind of your enemy cannot be overlooked. Sorry; RealPolitik coincides with military theory.
And that does not mean that we also do not, from time to time, transfer authority of certain prisoners to the control of nations whose definitions of torture are different from our own. What *they* might do to these prisoners would be, to us, "torture, but to them it's just another day at the office. It's like saying, "In NYC we can't smoke ... but in Detroit we can". Different rules in different places is not inconsistent.
Additionally, the US authority to create the definition of "torture" lies within the Executive branch. At the start of the the A'stan war, much ballyhooing was made because "Bush was rewriting the rules on torture". And? It's his prerogative. He's CinC.
Furthermore, even though the GenCons prohibit torture, they don't require universal application. The GenCons come with a definition of who the "rules of war" are legitimately applied to. Ever wonder why the prisoners from A'stan are in Gitmo while the prisoners from Iraq are held in Iraq? BEcause different rules are allowed -- by international law -- to be applied to them.
The prisoners at Gitmo are not, by GenCon definition, "POWs". Therefore the rules of war do not apply to them. We can, almost literally, do what we want with them.
People who claim we aren't following international law or the GenCons are simply wrong. We *are*, painstakingly, wrt Gitmo, and that's why they're there.
Now it's valid to argue that "mistreatment" does us no favors in the PR department, with either our Western cohort or the middle-eastern tribalists. But the reality is, "they" having been doing the same things to us and other Western people for far longer, and irrespective of what we do. They would, will, and have been torturing us when given the opportunity. For "them" to claim that they hacked off Armstrong's head because of any specific recent incident is ludicrous.
Does it inflame? yes. Does it cause? hardly. You'd need a working time-machine to claim that.
In nearly every way I can measure, President Bush has made things worse. He, and his cronies, have also found new and exciting ways to make things significantly worse than they were before
Neatly subjective. Got measurements?
There are several areas of my *opinion* which agree, and even a few where I can supply analytic support of a wide range of fact to support it. But I'm just wondering if you have any, like, non-emotional testimony.
how to address this easily dismissed 'moral high-ground'
Who said it was easy? I mean, typing the words was a piece of cake, but it came only after a formative youth of trying to find a moral compass in the "leaders" I
ve been subjected to, and learning about the rest of the "leaders" available currently, or at other times.
They are self-serving, without exception. Despots are self-serving without the permission of their people, populists are self-serving with permission. Either can be tyrants.
ala the bogus artifice ...
That "bogus artifice" is the most commonly used manner, throughout US history, of involving ourselves in hostilities. The WPA simply codifies the constitutional realities: "Listen, we *know* you can send soldier off to shoot people without our permission, and *we* can withhold appropriations if we really feel strongly that you shouldn't, but this ain't the 18th century anymore and a standing army is in everyone's interest. So here's the middle-ground..."
If it was a weasel-way, then you'd think the fairly liberal court of the 70s would have ruled that; they didn't.
Neatly subjective. Got measurements?
Why sure I do:
Under Bush's leadership (here's 5 to get started):
1) The number of people living under the poverty line has gone up.
2) The standing of the US in the view of the rest of the world has gone down.
3) He took a country that was largely united after 9/11 and divided it almost down the middle. (Yes, some of that was fear and shock, but not invading Iraq would have kept the country less politically divided.)
4) He has supported legislation and actions which harm the environment, which hurts all of us. (e.g. Kyoto treaty)
5) He has spent money that the government doesn't have, while cutting taxes, which has driven the deficit up and increased the leverage of foreign nations on our economy.
There's data for all of those, as I'm sure you're aware, I just don't have the time to search for it right now.
Re: torture
1) Is waterboarding torture?
2) From my point of view, which may not have legal standing, but certainly affects my perception of one's actions, if you wouldn't commit a certain crime against another person, but you turn that person over to someone else who you know will likely commit that crime, you are also partly responsible. I'm not sure of the legality, but I'm pretty sure of the morality.
3) That the people at Gitmo don't have the legal standing of either US citizens or POW's is reprehensible. In my opinion, choosing to just decide that the people have no legal status at all is, if not the same legally, in the team photo with Japanese internment camps. If the people committed crimes, then prosecute them and punish them. If they're soldiers working essentially undercover for the enemy, then they're POW's. If they haven't committed a crime, and they're citizens of another country, send them home. But do something with them.
4) I don't care what *they* do. Doing the same things that they do removes the distinctions between them and us, which is fine if we want to be a terrorist nation, but I'd rather not. There are things you just don't do, even if it makes you less safe, not in my opinion, anyway.
1) The number of people living under the poverty line has gone up.
It's gone up under every administration. That's the thing with "growing population", the number of every convenient demographic goes up.
Immediate circumstances account for temporary variances -- a mild winter can affect season unemployment rates, e.g., -- but the number of unemployed continually goes up. The number of employe, too.
What matter is the *rate*, the %age of the whole. And for the long-term.
2) The standing of the US in the view of the rest of the world has gone down.
I'd like to know how "standing" is measured. France has been annoyed with us since the end of WWII -- before, actually. Ever since FDR insulted DeGaulle by essentially being cruelly honest about him. The philosophy of "gaullism" is essentially the practice of being a petualnt teenager to Parent US.
Other parts of the world have never liked us, and mostly because we represent just another manifestation of "western" influence they've been struggling against for 1,300 years as a theo-fascist movement, and 4,000 years as a tribalist.
3) He took a country that was largely united after 9/11 and divided it almost down the middle. (Yes, some of that was fear and shock, but not invading Iraq would have kept the country less politically divided.)
This is curious. THe country that was "united" on 9-12 was very crisply and cleanly divided on 9-10, and you're surprised that it crisply and cleanly re-divided along prior fracture points on 9-13?
Whatever for?
The boards I nailed together three years ago in my barn are now split apart -- oh my, I wonder why...
4) He has supported legislation and actions which harm the environment, which hurts all of us. (e.g. Kyoto treaty)
He supported legislative NONaction which only POSSIBLY hurts the environment... I'm sure there's an honest-to-god scientist among you here; ask the scientist to give a brief rundown on the scientific differences between "hypothesis" and "theory".
In brief, a hypothesis is simply a "plausible explanation which has some amount of scientific evidence to support it" and which is testable along those lines. A theory is tested and proves to be predictable.
The anthropogenic global warmers, as a group, have made a wide array of predictions, and the ones whose term of prediction has been reached have proven to be incorrect. Usually widely. Their long-term predictions keep changing -- and decreasing in severity, as a rule. That is not the stuff of "theory"; that is the stuff of "hypothesis", or -- recalling the similar pop-science of my youth -- the stuff of sensationalist book deals. I still have "We Are the Earthquake Generation" by a PhD in Geology [Goodman?] somewhere in a box. And many people have "Silent Spring" which, as i'm sure you know, has been completely debunked. Others still have [and still listen to] the pop-schlock of Paul Ehrlich and his neo-malthusian nonsense.
"Global warming" is merely plausible at this point; it is not proven.
It is unwise public policy to be spending money on "plausible". Which is why Clinton didn't either, and the Senate voted 95-0 to not get involved on the ground floor. It wasn't 95 republicans ...
5) He has spent money that the government doesn't have, while cutting taxes, which has driven the deficit up and increased the leverage of foreign nations on our economy.
Jackpot. In terms of classical economic theory, cutting taxes is the recipe for expanding an economy in steady-state which is floundering. It cures the cyclic downturn blues.
But when you have an external source of downturn -- say martians invading, or pan-islamist yahoos knocking down some really tall buildings -- you've left steady-state, and classical economic theory calls for tax increases. At least rescind the tax cuts.
1) Is waterboarding torture?
Not having read the legalese in years, but recalling the general tone -- I'd say most likely not.
Annoying to the water-boarded? In almost all certainty, yes.
2) ... if you wouldn't commit a certain crime against another person, but you turn that person over to someone else who you know will likely commit that crime, you are also partly responsible.
So if the speed limit in your part of town is 35 and the speed limit in my part of the rural openness is 55 -- where it's even posted -- if you turn your newly-licensed teenager loose on my part of the countryside to do what's legal here and not legal in your neighborhood, it's still a crime, and you're partly responsible?
Izzat how it works?
I'm not sure of the legality, but I'm pretty sure of the morality.
And I'm certain of the grasping rationalism.
3) That the people at Gitmo don't have the legal standing of either US citizens or POW's is reprehensible.
Why EVER would they have standing as US citizens? They are a melange of mid-east hotheads, caught playing war. The reason they don't have standing as POWs is because the international laws which define such things were written so as to discourage free-for-alls and encourage as much civility during war as could be reasonably expected out of an inherently uncivil undertaking.
In a war, you've got to know who you're allowed to shoot at and who you aren't allowed to shoot at, and to mark yourself as someone to shoot at you need to wear a uniform. Well, sometimes the uniformed militaries take along non-uniformed assistants -- okay, so they count too. And sometimes people who find their country being invaded grab their pitchforks and shotguns and participate. So there's another rule that says if you are part of a:
local
spontaneously-formed
militarily-acting
openly-armed
militia, the purpose of which is to resist the invading/occupying force
then you are also "legitimate" and if captured a POW.
The only thing that most of the people at Gitmo have going for them is that they are resisting the occupying force. They are imports; they joined a pre-formed group; they act like a bunch of well-armed rabble; and don't carry their arms openly.
That is the very definition of "free-for-all". To discourage that, "civilized nations" are allowed to do what they want to them.
In my opinion, choosing to just decide that the people have no legal status at all is, if not the same legally, in the team photo with Japanese internment camps.
The rules of war declare that these people have no legal status. It was not our decision.
If the people committed crimes, then prosecute them and punish them.
They didn't commit crimes; they were caught playing war -- without a license, essentially.
Under the rules, captured combatants can be held, without "charge", without legal representation, without "civil rights", for the duration of hostilities.
We're still involved in hostilities in A'stan...
If they're soldiers working essentially undercover for the enemy, then they're POW's.
INcorrect. And this is the first thing they drum into you in basic training: ALWAYS wear your uniform. The uniform is a bullet-magnet, but if you're captured, your uniform is the ONLY thing that can get you humane treatment. Without a uniform, you are a spy or a "saboteur", and the rules of humane treatment no longer apply.
An ununiformed combatant -- and the US has manymany, btw, who volunteer -- is very likely to be completely disappeared if they're captured.
If they haven't committed a crime, and they're citizens of another country, send them home.
They're enemy combatants of a hostile action still going on.
On a side note, there've been several dozen released already. Roughly 3/4 of those released -- the last I read -- were either recaptured in A'stan, killed in A'stan [odd since they were usually Yemeni or Pakistani...], or killed or captured in Iraq [...odd since they were usually Yemeni or Pakistani...].
But do something with them.
...such as treat them like captured combatants of a hostile action that is still going on.
4) I don't care what *they* do.
Most noble idealists don't. Actions occur in a vacuum of some kind. What we do has to be so much better than everyone else in order for us to consider ourselves equal.
I admire the nobility. I roll my eyes at the naivete.
Doing the same things that they do removes the distinctions between them and us, which is fine if we want to be a terrorist nation, but I'd rather not.
Do you want to be a nation that survives?
I've got sheep. Two of them are getting slaughtered in a week. The others are perfectly safe from my evil wiles. So I oughta be able to sit them down and say, "Listen, sheeps, the ewes and Homer are fine. Let me come in there and shovel the barn without you freaking out..." right?
Preposterous, isn't it. They're sheep, after all. They don't understand.
Well, "they" are pan-islamist city-staters who do not understand the nationalist trappings that "the west" imposed on them a few centuries ago. They do not understand the distinctions we make between one person and the next. They honestly believe that Israel is, for all practical purposes, the 51st state... that France and the US and Canuckia and etc are just parts of the "evil west".
Responding to sheep as if they were anything but sheep is foolish, but not suicidal. Responding to jihading tribalists as if they were anything but jihading tribalists is foolish -- and because they are heavily armed, it *can* be suicidal.
They must be responded to in ways that they understand. They do not understand the hyper-distinctions we make; their world is black and white.
There are things you just don't do, even if it makes you less safe, not in my opinion, anyway.
But WHY don't you do them? To be "moral"?
War is not a moral thing. The best that can practically be gotten from it is a half-a-notch of humanity. But forget "moral".
You don't go into war to be "moral"; you go into war to win, and winning requires killing people, breaking things, and being mean and rude in general to people you've never met.
This is why you don't have wars lightly, and why it is critical for a thoughtful society to have the full disclosure -- that we didn't get, btw -- before undertaking it.
But once you're in it, you can't be a naive prissypants. That's the quickest way to lose the war. It's also among the first ways to lose your head... and losing heads is a common thing when fighting a culture that ritually beheads people.
The percentage of people under the poverty line went down under Clinton.
Actually, global warming is well-proven. You're the DoD guy, I'm the scientist. Without global warming, we'd be dead. The question among scientists is the degree to which humans affect the environment, not whether or not we do.
Maybe you're comfortable with the idea that such a person as an "enemy combatant" without a uniform has no legal status, and we can do anything we want, to paraphrase you from earlier. We all know that terrorism is different than a normal war, and while we've declared war on a concept, the concept doesn't issue uniforms. But the people who are on the "other side" are still people, and require some code of conduct while they're being held - that's basic human rights.
If you want to see my views on survial vs. behavior, read this.
And yep, I meant what I said there - America was founded on the belief that it was better to be dead than not free, and that wasn't just for the people we liked. "All men", remember. Idealistic? Sure. Naive? I think not.
At least we agree on the lack of disclosure issue. I think it's an impeachable offense, myself - we entered this war with no justification, no plan to win it, and no way to be done with it. They've admitted they had no idea it wouldn't all be peaches and cream.
I wouldn't have gone to war with Iraq, but if I had, I would have had the will to do it right - sent in a couple hundred thousand more troops, as the generals had requested, and actually had enough people there to do the job.
The war in Iraq and the war on terror (ehem) are two different things, however. At home, we're always going to have to live with the threat that someone might want to blow us up. That's the price of freedom.
The percentage of people under the poverty line went down under Clinton.
At which point? Or are you talking from front to back? Or are you talking from one arbitrary point to some other arbitrary point?
You are taking statistical slop and extrapolating huge policy indictments from it that are not warranted.
...except for partisan politics.
Actually, global warming is well-proven. ... The question among scientists is the degree to which humans affect the environment, not whether or not we do.
Let me quote myself. "The anthropogenic global warmers, as a group ..."
You just reiterated pretty much what I said. I'm glad we can agree.
But the people who are on the "other side" are still people, and require some code of conduct while they're being held - that's basic human rights.
Okay... who defines these "human rights"? and under what legal authority? There are everyday practical problems with imposing group-hug idealism.
The legal reality is that even though Int'l Law through the GenCons don't command us to have a 'code of conduct' as regards combatants who play war against the rules, we still do. They are governed by US Military rules -- the ones that Bush tweaked in 2001 or early 2002.
And we *still* treat these people better than they would be treated by their own governments if they were to do to their own nation what they did to ours. I've got a few links at home to the videos of a few Americans being beheaded by jihadis; and I remember vividly the Afghani woman executed in 1999 in the middle of a Kabul soccer pitch for having sex. She was wearing blue and was shot in the back of her head. Her face exploded. Yummmmmm. This was back when the college feminists of our nation were aggitating for intervention in A'stan because of how they treated women...
...I scanned your tratise. Yep. Fear is an age-old tool of political manipulation. If you don't sign up for this war, Hussein will email anthrax to your AOL account, and then you'll be sorry!! If you mess with social security, you'll just kill old people, and you'll be old one day!! Goes on all the time. It's what people respond to, particularly when they don't know the subject in question.
it was better to be dead than not free
That makes great bumper stickers and all, but it's a dead-end political philosophy. The only thing we'd end up with is being dead. ...which is inevitable enough as it is. Our biological imperative is to procreate, and our social imperative is to preserve our heritage. This latter is at odds with "free".
You argue at cross purposes with yourself. We all do to some extent. In other places you've spoken about the "practical" realities. And the practical realities are that the population of any given society is not, and cannot be, knowledgeable about every subject that is necessary to know in order to rule that society. Millions of people are livid about Enron, but only a handful of people even partially understand what happened.
Oh, right, "people lost their pensions". Great. But *how*? What specifically went wrong that this happened?
I don't know, and I doubt you do either. Certainly none of the folks who lost their pensions did, otherwise they arguably wouldn't have lost it.
And then, what do you do to prevent it from happening again? McCain-Feingold? I have it on good authority -- my wife, the CPA -- that the "solution" is a monster of unintended consequences waiting to happen.
Base emotion drives nearly all of what we do. It's not going to change. It is idealistic to wish otherwise, and it is naive to act otherwise.
==================
At least we agree on the lack of disclosure issue
"Why don't you tell people the truth?..."
If the prez, ANY prez, were to be candid about such things, 99% of the nation wouldn't understand what he was talking about. They're mechanics and plumbers and investment bankers; they're not military tacticians. 75% of the nation would believe that watching Hogan's Heros reruns qualifies them to expertly discuss tactics and strategy with people who've spent their lives doing it.
They do that now. Very good and capable plumbers become, after listening to a speech on going to war with Iraq, very willing to advertise gross ignorance and say why it's wrong or foolish or "illegal".
The reason for the war in Iraq was not what you heard; you'd have been bored to death by the disclosure of the detailed diplomatic and military minutia.
we entered this war with no justification
Incorrect.
no plan to win it
Incorrect.
no way to be done with it
Incorrect.
Justification: Iraq violated the cease fire; over 100,000 US troops were devoted to sitting around the Persian Gulf with their thumbs up their asses babysitting Hussein for the UN -- at a cost of more than $25B/yr -- with no end in sight and no diplomatic support from the UN we were doing this for, and damned little material support. We were prosecuting a "war against terrorism" and had nearly 1/2 of our active military tied down to various UN or NATO missions that we could not extricate ourselves from. The largest of these was Iraq, Iraq was a supporter of terorism, we needed to extricate ourselves ... use the first excuse possible, and then play politics on the voters to get buy-in.
People who are saying "no justification" are confusing the politics with reality. But at least you didn't say "illegal". I tee off on them.
"Plan to win it" -- war is won. Occupation =/= war.
"Way to be done with it". This gripes me. Foreign policy is not a microwave meal that you can pop in and zap for a minute and get piping hot peace and stability.
The Allies occupied Germany for seven years after WWII, and the Germans were a subdued population. The Iraqis are not subdued, and it's *only* been almost 3 years.
I'll say it again: you cannot judge this moment in time in a vacuum; it can only be judged in comparison to other similar moments.
They've admitted they had no idea it wouldn't all be peaches and cream
Anyone could have told you that. Here: let me be a junior Nostradamus and make absolutely true and accurate prophecies: the US will undertake a foreign policy under our next prez that will have mistakes and miscalculations. Guess we shouldn't have foreign policy then, huh?
I wouldn't have gone to war with Iraq
Then you'd have been stuck with 1/4 of your active military babysitting one petty tyrant under the auspices of an international body that is often anti-you.
but if I had, I would have had the will to do it right - sent in a couple hundred thousand more troops...
That would have taken a draft because we didn't [and still don't] have the extra few-100K troops. Got the political will to do that? Can you stand the political heat?
These are the decisions made that go into the equation, and the trade-offs that come with them.
The war in Iraq and the war on terror (ehem) are two different things
Indescribable bullshit.
Do you honestly think that middle easterners who spout universalist claptrap are that concerned about borders? especially when they didn't even make the borders?
When "they" view themselves in relation to us, they are "muslim brothers". When they view us at any time, we are "infidels". They have a completely black-white worldview.
THEY do not differentiate between their various anti-western terrorisms, why should we? If we were to do so we would be creating, by definition, an unrealistic response to it. We are obliged to treat them as they act.
1) The percentage of people living below the poverty line when Clinton left office was lower than when he took office. In 1993, it was 15.1%, in 2000, it was 11.3%. Then by 2004, it was back up to 12.7%. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov5.html
2) You, sir, are an idiot if you truly believe those things about Iraq and terrorism. The only reason the war wasn't illegal is that there is no governing authority which defines such things. We attacked a sovereign nation who did not threaten us, with no plans for what to do when we defeated their weak military. Anyone could have told me that it wouldn't be pretty? Apparently the Bush administration couldn't. They started a war based on lies, misinformation, and greed, and I'm somehow supposed to let them finish the job? They should all have been fired (voted out) in 2004. That they weren't is tragic.
3) I'm using my definition of human rights, where place of origin doesn't matter. You use yours.
4) Take your behaving like the enemy crap and tell your story walking. Just because they're terrorists with no regard for human rights does not mean I have to be. If you have to stoop to the level of your enemy to win, why bother fighting? There's no distinction between you at that point.
One more thing. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. If the war in Iraq is about doing what's right, pay the price of possibly not being re-elected and have a draft. If it's not, then shut up, sit down, and take your dumbfuck rationalizations for why you want to go to war and shove them up your ass. The war was wrong from the beginning, it's wrong now, and it will be regarded as wrong for years and years to come.
I have been reading in awe and wonder over the past few hours. I’d like to chime in, as apparently it was “R’s” response (at least in part) to one of my posts which touched off this line of debate.
I am happy to defend my statement that only mouth-breathers in Idiot America believe that there is any connection between the current Iraqi insurgency and the on-going activities of al Quaeda. Due to the propaganda (I could just call what they did outright lies) of the McLiar/Vader administration, a significant percentage of American citizens believed (and some STILL believe) that there was a direct link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. There wasn’t - according to pretty much EVERYBODY, including the independent 9/11 Commission. That was politics, and hey, there was an election to win….. The problem is that the lies continue, unabated. The administration tied the insurgency to foreigners linked to al Quaeda, when in fact less than 5% (by the U.S. Military’s own estimates) of the insurgents are from other countries. Drinkey and Vader and the WHIG contingent point to Zarqawi and say, “Look, he’s al Quaeda.” Every article I read about Zarqawi’s life/activities says that al Quaeda sent him packing (too unstable), and is now only using him because he is handy. A fair and balanced appraisal of the situation would be: our dishonest/clusterfucked invasion/occupation has created a destabilized/balkanized Iraq where long-simmering enmities have been allowed to come to the surface. It can be argued that this was going to happen anyway at some point (this is just the denouement of the Iran-Iraq War). However, I CAN argue that we had no business going into Iraq the first place. I CAN argue that the administration has waged a dishonest and criminal propaganda campaign. I CAN argue that this campaign has been extremely successful in taking attention away from the FACT that we’re no safer today than 4 years ago, and that in fact a successful terrorist attack here (which is inevitable) will only embolden the WHIGites to change the “I” from Iraq to Iran.
I am a rabbler rouser – a polemist. I make no apologies for that. I do not insult or denigrate any individual who posts here. I WILL continue to call out this administration (and the GOPs/DEMs who enable it) on matters that I feel warrant my attention.
One quick post, since I have to get some work done at some point today -
I didn't believe Bush's case for war. Certainly plenty did, but not me. Please do not lump me in with them. I knew before we invaded that it would be a mess, because Iraq is a far more complicated country than the Administration gave it credit for. They've publicly announced that they didn't anticipate what happened. (Paul Bremer was the most recent)
Wrong isn't always about legal/illegal. You may think the violations of UN sanctions, etc, was justification, I do not. We had higher priorities at the time that got completely neglected in the rush to invade Iraq. Saddam was not a direct threat to the safety of the US, and this was known at the time (although widely ignored by those who wanted to do so). The rest of the arguments "for" the war are just weak attempts to try to divert attention from the pathetic failure that the war has become.
Later.
In answer to your questions...
1) WHIG (White House Iraq Group) - a cabal of neoconservatives, led by Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, responsible for the formulation of the plans for the Iraqi invasion and subsequent occupation.
2) A prediction.... If Iran refuses to play ball with the UN, the EU will do nothing. Israel, however, will attack Iran with air strikes. The USA will back up Israel, and use carrier-based tactical weapons to take out "command and control" assets.
Iran will respond by massing troops on its border with Iraq. The Iraqi Shiites will join their Irani brothers and will attack our positions.
As for your response to my final sentence.... if you feel insulted or denigrated by my statement that only mouthbreathing denizens of idiot america link the insurgency to al Quaeda, then I'm sorry that you consider yourself a member of that sorry group.
Post a Comment