Gotta give Bush credit: He made the exact right move at the exact right time. Ditching Rumsfeld, the single most visible symbol of the Iraq debacle short of Bush himself, was perfectly timed. Had he dumped Rummy shortly before the election, it would have been seen as a desperation move. I suppose there’s a possibility that it might have changed the outcome, which has been seen as a voter repudiation of the war. But I don’t think it’s a sizable chance, and probably would have been seen as a case of “too little, too late.” In this instance, though, it managed to grab headlines from the Democratic triumph back to the White House. Bush has snared the spin cycle before the election dust has settled. He did the right thing in getting rid of an advisor who has given him nothing but bad advice and been a PR catastrophe on more than one occasion, and he did it at a time when his support base is at an all-time moral low. He has sent a definite message: He’s not going to be spending the next two years with more of the same and staying the course, steering the remainder of his presidency into irrelevancy.
With a smartening-up Bush and a newly energized Democratic majority, let’s see if the government finally gets on the right track.
PAD
• 
“Nations flout them all the time, including the U.S. The only time anyone thinks they mean a dámņ thing is when it’s convenient.”
Yeah, I found it funny as hëll to watch Rush, Hannity, Beck, Fox News and other cling to 1441 as if it were God’s own word after years of screaming about how we should get out of the U.N. and how those evil U.N. Resolutions were just designed to destroy America. It was an even bigger belly laugh to see members of The Grand Old Party out there worshipping 1441 on the chat shows when they had been even more nasty in their comments about the U.N. and our membership in it.
And, of course, the next U.N. Resolutions that came out that they didn’t like? Worthless bathroom tissue from the house of the Devil.
Gotta love it.
;p
“i’d love to see us fix Iraq, but nothing i’ve seen gives me any faith that we can do so.”
I have a theory. I may be wrong, God KNOWS, I may be wrong, but I think a large part of the problem the planners of this little war of theirs had is they didn’t understand the people they’d run into. I mean, was there an “Understanding Islamic Minds” part of the process? Not being sarcastic, here, (well, not TOTALLY sarcastic) but was there any account taken of the culture we’d be up against trying to make into our new bestest friends? I sure as hëll know I BARELY begin to scratch the surface of the plastic wrap around the brown paper wrapper on the hermetically sealed box that says “I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ISLAM.” But then, I don’t really run into too many in my line of work. You’d think people who are changing lives of people who follow Islam might be a little more informed, but I haven’t seen it.
“I mean, was there an “Understanding Islamic Minds” part of the process?”
No, there wasn’t. It almost seemed as if they were doing whatever they could to not understand it. It’s why I thought so little of the planners and people running this mess. It’s one of the things I hope gets addressed now (better late then never).
Back to the arguement from Jerry:
>1) Long term security
If we pull out now, Iraq goes to hëll. That’s both stupid and in the best interests of no one.
Africa has gone to hëll in a very similar way as Iraq would, I see very few people advocating invasion on either side or stay the course. And who says it would be any worse than what is happening today? Headline on Netscape right now: BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) – Gunmen dressed as police commandos kidnapped scores of staff and visitors in a lightning raid on a Baghdad higher education office Tuesday, while least 82 people were killed or found dead in murders, bombings and clashes nationwide. That looks like hëll today, let alone tomorrow.
>Many people in Iraq did not trust us after Gulf 1. due to Bush the Elder making promises of support if they stood up against Saddam and then abandoning to torture and death after they did so.
Newflash, no one over there trusts us all that much anyways. We are the supporters of Israel and that has made us the hated in a lot of the Muslim world for far longer than 1990!
Also remember a large part of those rebels were Kurds, not sunni or shiite. The Kurds are Christian by heritage and don’t really get along with anyone in the area. If they aren’t causing Iraq problems they are in Turkey causing problems. And they still like us.
>You would have us, after bleating on about learning from history, repeat that with a similar mistake.
Yes bleating is a good word, because if we had learned or I should say, if Bush had learned from history and the rest of the population hadn’t been terrorized by his rhetoric we wouldn’t have invaded in the first place. Remember a large part of my argument is based on the past history of these people and how they have reacted to occupiers for the past several thousand years. The British in modern history tried twice and have now tried 3 times to subdue the region. Their last attempt culminated with splitting Persia into Iran and Iraq and in Iran we (the US) stuck a puppet on a throne known as the Shaw. Do you remember the fate of the Shaw of Iran? Yes the SHaw ruled for about 35 years I believe but that just meant a future generation of americans had to deal with the stupidity of their fathers and we’re still dealing with what we caused in that country.
>Lets just go ahead and make another country that hates our guts. That way, they can either survive to be their U.S.A. haters in the future or they can hook up with/be taken over by another country in the region that also hates us.
Please give me a plan of how we eliminate racial and religious hatred among such a diverse region? Do you really think installing another puppet government in the country is going to make them like us any better? We installed the Shaw in Iran and where did that get us? We installed Saddam into power in Iraq and where did that get us? How many times do you keep repeating the same fraking mistake before you wake up and go: Ah, that don’t work!
The only reason the power brokers in the region even tolerate us is because they want our money for their oil.
> We may be able to give the new government of Iraq enough breathing room to start to better set itself up.
The police we trained are shooting each other, if they even show up to work. Half of the trainees want only the money and disappear after graduation. Such things inspire so much faith, not.
>We’ll also be able to deal with some security issues in a way that being too short in numbers and playing whack-a-mole has never let us do.
Bin Ladden, where are you? Security starts at home, not 7000 miles away.
>I think the best win we will get is by not creating a country that hates us and actively tries to hurt us.
This is your win and it’s the only win you can possibly get: A petty dictator that puts his people down at gunpoint. Who may 40 years later turn on you and bite you in the ášš. Or will be overthrown and one step ahead of the headsman axe.
Bleak, yes but realistic.
> We have a moral obligation to do what we can.
I wonder how we would have felt if Britan had decided at the outset of our civil war that since they were the worlds power they were morally obligated to dictate the results and fix our problems.
We tried to rebuild their industrial base, they blew it up. We tried to give them education, they beheaded the teachers. We try to restore power, they shoot the workers. We try to give them food, they blow up the trucks.
How about this, our moral obligation ended when they elected their government last winter. The people chose their leaders, it is now time for those leaders to either live or die by their elected authority. And if the people are unwilling to recognize the authority of those they elected, and obviously they are not then quite frankly that is the problem for those they elected, not us.
If they are as we say a duly elected government then it is time for that government to solve it’s own problems. We didn’t ask the British to be our police officers after the revolutionary war. We didn’t ask them to protect our politicians either with their military. We kicked them out and quickly built our own civil authority.
The Iraqis however are acting like children. One moment their duly elected government is saying that we can’t maintain out check points which are trying to find our missing soldier because we don’t have the authority and in the next breath screaming we can’t leave because they aren’t “ready” yet…
> We have yet to bring any of those things back up to pre-war levels.
Not from the standpoint of trying.
>How exactly happy do you think the world will be with us if we leave a country that, while limping badly, was running before we decided to waltz in and destroy it and not do something to fix that before waltzing back out and into the sunset?
Have you not been listening to the news? Russia doesn’t want us there, China neither. Half of Europe calls us idiots and wants us out of there. Really when you are at the bottom of the pit how much father can you fall? The UN already thinks we are a pack of imperialist dogs. So we get a second black eye in the world’s opinion, zippy doo da. Those who hate us will have another excuse to do so as if they needed one. Those who want our money will continue filling container ships with their wares and shipping them to us. The world will not come to an end.
>How much of an immoral, irresponsible and uncaring jáçkášš do you have to be to think that doing that is all fine and dandy? Wait, don’t answer that, I already have my answer.
Ah taking a page from Bill’s book with the name calling. As uncaring and unfeeling as the rest of the world is as they allow unfettered violence to continue claiming millions of lives in Africa. Or how about China which has one of the worst human rights record of any industrialized nation. Hey their our “allies” just ignore the total lack of morals with their own people as you buy the dirt cheap DVD player from WallMart. How about this: as much as people care about the fact Iran is about to torture a woman who is a soap star on their tv for having sex outside of wedlock. Or how about the detainees we have from the region of Iraq who have not had the very civil rights we demand for our citizens and most of which continue to be tortured even though by now any information they may have had is so long out of date it’s worthless.
Scream all the immoral indignity all you want, it’s a joke, morality has nothing to do with it. You daily go out and support countries with your money who’s moral track records are far worse than ours, who torture their people, lock them up for having an original idea, kill their daughters over an archaic sense of “honor”, enslave people, allow the drug runners to run free and have no right to lecture us over moral standings one bit. But you keep sending them your money so you can enjoy your cheap creature comforts. A few of those countries would be China, Saudi Arabia, Venuzeala, Mexico, India, South Africa… Don’t lecture me on morals, your moral compass seems to be busted!
>You keep saying that we’re trying to salve our egos. I’m sorry, but you’re full of s**t.
Hit a nerve have I? 🙂
> I have friends who are over there. I would rather not see them get killed just so my ego can feel good about itself.
Yet your moral compass says get them killed so that you feel your country has met it’s moral obligations. I call throwing away lives on a useless enterprise so you can feel moral is salving your ego.
>It’s an option that should not just be dismissed out of hand because things have been run poorly up until now.
I’ll remember that at the next soldier’s funeral I get a call to document.
>They (most of them) want to stay and try to do something to make having been there worth it. They feel that they can. The only guys I know who don’t share that belief are the guys who never wanted to be there at all. Personally, I’ll give my friends’ opinions on what they want more respect then yours.
John Wayne syndrome. A country tends to get the type of ruler that the people want. Every ruler, even dictatorships rule at the will of the people, loose the will of the people and the ruler is going down. Iraq could easily have chosen someone else than Saddam, china, Iran, Russia. Even the mightiest army can’t stand up to the majority of the populace.
“This is your win and it’s the only win you can possibly get:….”
Hey, call me when you have the numbers for the nest six mega millions lotto drawings. Then and only then can you tell me that you and you alone know the ONLY outcome the any future holds.
I’ll address everything else later. Off to work. Don’t wait up.
Jerry C, Brian Peter has crossed the line into troll territory. I’d suggest you refrain from providing him with any further satisfaction.
>I didn’t read you wrong at all. If you meant something else, you did a poor job of getting it across. Not my fault there.
Well it looks like my failing is in assuming that the change to the “rules” of dealing with mental cases or hi-jackers on planes is universal common knowledge. After all the shoe bomber was beat up and then tied up shortly after 9-11. One guy who charged the flight deck was beat to death. Two more mental cases who tried to charge the pilots or just acted all around weird have either been beat up and restrained or just restrained. I figured you could fill in the blanks.
Well here is the original header and the lines in question:
Posted by: Brian Peter at November 13, 2006 09:36 PM
“Piloting 3 jumbo jets into major buildings was due to a convergence of pre-held beliefs that had been pounded into people for decades. 1 We had forgotten that people would willingly committee suicide for their cause and 2 that no one who ever high jacked a plane would use it to committee suicide… “
Leading to passengers and flight crew will no longer willingly allow a plane to be hi-jacked.
>Now, if you’re trying to change what you said to make it say that five guys should not have been able to overpower sixty-eight people or that sixty-eight people should have been able to make short work of five thugs with box cutters… Well, then we can agree. That’s just not what you wrote or how it came across. Again, not my fault that you didn’t make a clear point.
Yes, my fault to assume you think logically.
You know, I hate it when U.N. Resolutions are trotted out as a justification for anything. Nations flout them all the time, including the U.S. The only time anyone thinks they mean a dámņ thing is when it’s convenient.
Well, yeah, I know. It’s a bit worse though when it’s a UN resolution that you supported. I mean, the UN can pass every anti-Israel resolution they want from here to armegeddon (i.e., Thursday) and it’s no big deal to yawn and look the other way but when you just trash a resolution that you yourself was pushing…
I’m not saying that our hands are bound by it though.
Africa has gone to hëll in a very similar way as Iraq would, I see very few people advocating invasion on either side or stay the course.
I think allowing the current genocide in Africa to happen will be one of the great blots on the memory of our time.
Iraq could easily have chosen someone else than Saddam, china, Iran, Russia. Even the mightiest army can’t stand up to the majority of the populace.
I seriously doubt the truth of that statement. Were there a free election I doubt that the North Koreans would want Kim. And Iraq did not “choose” Saddma–he chose to take over the party and killed anyone who was in his way. It’s not like the average Iraqi could do anything about it. A dictator that has the support of 20% of the public and 80% of the army is waaaaaay better off than one who has the support of 80% of the public and only 20% of the military. When that idiot in Romania got lined up against the wall and shot it was because the army was no longer willing to shoot the public, not because one day a majority of the public decided they didn’t like him.
>Posted by: Bill Myers vomited:
>Jerry C, Brian Peter has crossed the line into troll territory. I’d suggest you refrain from providing him with any further satisfaction.
You are the troll Myers. You are the one who stepped into a decent debate between two people and started with the snide remarks and name calling.
I wrote: I’m lost. (in other words your point wasn’t well explained and I was looking for you to fill in the hole. Instead I get)
Bill Myers wrote: Yes, indeed you are.
And followed that up with:
Posted by: Bill Myers at November 14, 2006 05:11 AM
…having searched your last post for anything resembling a coherent point and finding instead nothing of the sort, I find I have nothing else to say to you.
The feelings mutual Bill. You’re the troll and I have nothing more to say to you.
>I seriously doubt the truth of that statement. Were there a free election I doubt that the North Koreans would want Kim. And Iraq did not “choose” Saddma–he chose to take over the party and killed anyone who was in his way. It’s not like the average Iraqi could do anything about it. A dictator that has the support of 20% of the public and 80% of the army is waaaaaay better off than one who has the support of 80% of the public and only 20% of the military. When that idiot in Romania got lined up against the wall and shot it was because the army was no longer willing to shoot the public, not because one day a majority of the public decided they didn’t like him.
Please read the rest of what I said in that paragraph. I said no army can stand up to the majority of the country’s populace. This has been proven again and again in history. The problem is though unless the situation is soooooo bad the general populace won’t do much to overthrow their own government because they don’t want to put their heads on the line or just don’t care because for the most part they are living their lives just fine. Push the populace too far and you are Marie Antoinette.
“Also remember a large part of those rebels were Kurds, not sunni or shiite. The Kurds are Christian by heritage and don’t really get along with anyone in the area. If they aren’t causing Iraq problems they are in Turkey causing problems. And they still like us.”
Wrong. The Kurds have been Muslim longer than the Shia in Iran or Iraq have been Shia. There problem is that they are not Arabs or Turks. But they’re defenitly Muslim. They are not moving between Iraq and Turkey, there are Kurds in Turkey and Kurds in Iraq.
“Yes bleating is a good word, because if we had learned or I should say, if Bush had learned from history and the rest of the population hadn’t been terrorized by his rhetoric we wouldn’t have invaded in the first place. Remember a large part of my argument is based on the past history of these people and how they have reacted to occupiers for the past several thousand years. The British in modern history tried twice and have now tried 3 times to subdue the region. Their last attempt culminated with splitting Persia into Iran and Iraq and in Iran we (the US) stuck a puppet on a throne known as the Shaw. Do you remember the fate of the Shaw of Iran? Yes the SHaw ruled for about 35 years”
Wrong. The west muddled things in Iran, but not the way Brian says.
Persia’s first encompassing Shi’a Islamic state was established under the Safavid dynasty in 1501. The Safavid dynasty soon became a major power in the world and started the promotion of tourism in Iran. Under their rule the Persian Architecture flowered again and saw many new monuments. The decline of the Safavid state in the 17th century increasingly turned Persia into an arena for rising rival colonial powers such as Imperial Russia and the British Empire that wielded great political influence in Tehran under the Qajarid dynasty. Iran however, managed to maintain its sovereignty and was never colonized, making it unique in the region. With the rise of modernization in the late 19th century, desire for change led to the Persian Constitutional Revolution of 1905–1911. In 1921, Reza Shah Pahlavi staged a coup against the weakened Qajar dynasty. A supporter of modernization, Reza Shah initiated the development of modern industry, railroads, and establishment of a national education system, but his autocratic rule and unbalanced social reforms created discontent among many Iranians.
During World War II, Britain and the USSR invaded Iran from August 25 to September 17, 1941, to stop an Axis-supported coup and secure Iran’s petroleum infrastructure. The Allies of World War II forced the shah to abdicate in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whom they hoped would be more supportive. In 1951, an eccentric pro-democratic nationalist, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh rose to prominence in Iran and was elected its first Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, Mossadegh alarmed the West by his nationalization of Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later renamed BP), which controlled all of the country’s oil reserves. Britain immediately put an embargo on Iran. Members of the British Intelligence Service approached the United States under President Eisenhower in 1953 to join them in Operation Ajax, a military Junta to overthrow Iran’s democracy. President Eisenhower agreed, and authorized the CIA to take the lead in the operation of overthrowing Mossadegh and reinstalling a US friendly monarch. The CIA faced many setbacks, but eventually succeeded and the end of Iranian democracy became an early notch in the young organization’s belt.
Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh founder of Iran’s first democratic government, overthrown in a CIA-backed coup in 1953
Regardless of this setback, the covert operation soon went into full swing, conducted from US Embassy in Tehran under the leadership of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr.. Agents were hired to facilitate violence; and, as a result, protests broke out across the nation. Anti- and pro-monarchy protestors violently clashed in the streets, leaving almost 300 dead. The operation was successful in triggering a coup, and within days, pro-Shah tanks stormed the capital and bombarded the Prime Minister’s residence. Mossadegh surrendered, and was arrested on 19 August 1953. He was tried for treason, and sentenced to three years in prison.
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was then reinstated as Shah. His rule became increasingly autocratic in the following years. With strong support from the US and UK, the Shah further modernized Iranian industry, but simultaneously crushed all forms of political opposition with his intelligence agency, SAVAK. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini became an active critic of the Shah’s modernization efforts and publicly denounced the government. Khomeini, who was popular in religious circles, was arrested and imprisoned for 18 months. After his release in 1964, Khomeini publicly criticized the United States government. The Shah was persuaded to send him into exile by General Hassan Pakravan. Khomeini was sent first to Turkey and then to Iraq. While in exile, he continued to denounce the Shah.
——————
You should learn from history but not fight the previous war. The next terrorist attack will not be an exact repeat of 9/11.
——————–
The US could leave Iraq with relatively little harm to itself. But it wil be bad for the other countries in the region, as well as for the Iraqis whi did put faith in the US.
The US presence is not so much fueling the violence as giving some legitimacy to some of the groups. If the US leaves, the loss of this legitimacy might help some of the factions cut a deal among themselves, or they might continue fighting for power. Some of the fighters, especially foreign, might continue fighting to establish a Sunni Islamic government in Iraq, or they may move to other countries where they can fight the Jihad.
———————
It is hard to believe anything can be done in Iraq. But then, this war has been run by idiots so far. Maybe smarter people can come up with some good ideas. It would be better to give them the chance to do so, or at least try to minimize the damage caused by the US leaving.
Posted by: Brian Peter at November 14, 2006 06:30 PM
You are the troll Myers. You are the one who stepped into a decent debate between two people and started with the snide remarks and name calling.
Nope. Wrong. My first response to you:
“Brian Peter — you are correct that historically, the most effective way to fight a war has been to use overwhelming force to pound your opponent into submission. When we defeated the Axis in WWII, however, they surrendered. We didn’t end up with Nazi cells committing acts of terror within and outside of Europe. We do have Islamic terrorists doing just that today, though. If we simply mow down Iraq, we will inspire more terrorists. And as Sept. 11, 2001, has show — they CAN hurt us. They already have.”
Please note that I started by acknowledging an area where I felt you were correct. That should have clued you in right then and there that I wasn’t out to get you. Yet how did you respond? With phrases like:
“Get over it, already.”
“So people can salve their egos with more dead soldiers until even they have had enough and say nothing can be done?”
Those remarks were belittling and insulting. So, let’s see… I start out by telling you “you are correct” and only then proceed to civil disagreement. You respond with an abrasive tone and insults, and then get angry because you’ve been called on it.
Game set and match to me.
You are crying because you picked a fight you were too weak to handle. Too bad.
Posted by: Brian Peter at November 14, 2006 06:30 PM
The feelings mutual Bill. You’re the troll and I have nothing more to say to you.
Nope. The feeling’s not mutual. You hate me. I don’t hate you. That makes all the difference in the world. If at any point you’d like to calm down and try debating without making it personal, I’m still game. Who knows? You might surprise yourself by finding out how open-minded people can be when you don’t make everything personal.
Or you can keep trolling. It’s your choice. But just don’t whine about the consequences, okay? It’s unseemly.
Brian Peter, I’m sorry. It’s been a rough day at work, and that can color one’s perceptions and responses. Not long after I hit the “Post” button I realized I was letting my temper get the best of me.
We’re both passionate about our respective points of view and I think we got off on the wrong foot. I’d be willing to wipe the slate clean and give it another shot if you would. What say you?
So what nation is going watch the US fûçk up Iraq — and then turn around and follow our lead to fix it? Believing such a group of fools will solve anything in Iraq is magical thinking.
The UN told the US and coalition not to go into Iraq. Considering the US will be disobeying someone either by staying or going, the best course is to cut the resolve of the insurgents by leaving.
Note that the remarks by Brian Peter Bill Myers cited were part of a point. The only virtue of the “logical” remarks by Bill Myers Brian Peter cited were to antagonize.
Ask Bill Myers what his problem is, and he’ll accuse you of trying to hijack Peter’s authority. He has a taste for dominance. He also apparently feels threatened by observation, finding comfort in blotting out things looking at him with shrouds.
Mike, I’ve already acknowledged that I let my temper get the best of me and extended a gesture of goodwill toward Brian Peter. What more would you have me do?
Mike, I will extend to you the same gesture. I’m sorry that we got off on the wrong foot. It takes two to tango, after all. I’m willing to set aside the past and try to coexist amicably if you are. What say you?
Ok, Bill Myers, reaching out for peace after my last post is smooth.
The thing is, I’m not sorry for hammering the point that the only virtue of denying “ANY racially motivated murder” matches the plain wording of “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]” in the definition of genocide is sheltering racism. For the ridicule I’ve taken on this point, I’m looking for something to close the issue.
As it stands, you get some credit for your gesture to end things, but that’s all.
Well Bill, you tried.
For Mike, the fact that he has earned justifiable “ridicule” is far far more important than anything else.
Mike, I stand by my assertion that you are wrong about the definition of “genocide.” I cannot, and will not, betray my beliefs merely to smooth things over. It wouldn’t be honest. If you are inclined to hold a grudge against me for that, so be it.
It’s not like I’m suggesting that we become best friends — merely that we disagree civilly and agree to coexist amicably. That’s all. You seem to be unwilling to bury the hatchet. So be it. If you ever change your mind, however, you will find me ready to bury said hatchet as well.
As for the ridicule you have taken, it’s no more than you’ve dished out. You can continue to nurse a grudge about it, or try to move forward. That’s entirely up to you.
If the ridicule and grudge aren’t affecting you — what the hëll did you apologize for?
I haven’t made a single post that hasn’t carried a point. You’re in the habit of making posts for the sole purpose of ridicule. You have a taste for blood.
And by denying “ANY racially motivated murder” matches the plain wording of “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]” in the definition of genocide, you are sheltering your taste for blood as a virtue. What a sorry thing to fight for.
Mike, I can only reiterate: if at any time you choose to bury the hatchet, I will join you.
Otherwise, I don’t think there’s anything left for me to say.
Bill Mulligan: Yeah, I tried. I didn’t think there would be a high probability of success but nevertheless it was worth making a good-faith attempt. If nothing else, I hope this will allow me to get back to what it is that made this blog so enjoyable for me when I first started posting here months ago: the exchange of ideas rather than the clash of personalities.
Listen to you. You are so anxious for Bill Myers to refuse to apologize for something specific, you answer for him 10 minutes after my post. Bill Mulligan, you are so fûçkëd up.
If nothing else, I hope this will allow me to get back to what it is that made this blog so enjoyable for me when I first started posting here months ago: the exchange of ideas rather than the clash of personalities.
It’s hard to call it a clash of personalities when your opponent doesn’t have one. Or at least, one worth having.
But he does have time on his hands. I–alas!–must hurry off to bed.
“Africa has gone to hëll in a very similar way as Iraq would, I see very few people advocating invasion on either side or stay the course.”
And you said I was reaching. Brian, and I’ll try and make this really simple, we’re not in any wars in Africa that we created by invading an African country. We’re discussing Iraq because, laughably insane idea that it was, WE INVADED IRAQ AND ARE THERE NOW. There is a tiny difference there, but I think you can work that out. Beyond that, there is no area in Africa that has the equivalent security, military, financial or strategic standing that Iraq has.
“Also remember a large part of those rebels were Kurds, not sunni or shiite. The Kurds are Christian by heritage and don’t really get along with anyone in the area.”
Are you really sure you want to post about how much more you know about that area then us and then turn around and say things like that?
“Newflash, no one over there trusts us all that much anyways.”
Yeah, that’s a great reason to add even more people to the list and a really great reason to not do the right thing.
“…if Bush had learned from history and the rest of the population hadn’t been terrorized by his rhetoric we wouldn’t have invaded in the first place.”
Yeah, and if Gore won the election in 2000, we wouldn’t be talking about Bush. You want to throw around some more useless what ifs? Reality Check: We did invade Iraq, we are in Iraq and that’s not going to change by pointing out what could have happened, “if”. We deal with what we have to deal with here and now because, unlike the past, we can can exert some control over what is happening and will happen.
“Remember a large part of my argument is based on the past history…”
“The British in modern history tried twice and have now tried 3 times…”
“…splitting Persia into Iran and Iraq…”
“Do you remember the fate of the Shaw of Iran?”
Ok, you’re not impressing anybody here. You keep referencing how much you know and acting as if we know nothing. You’re late to the party and you missed quite a few of the discussions. We’ve covered all this and more. I’ll save you some future typing. When I was arguing against going in, when Bush was talking about making a Western style democracy and when Bush was proclaiming the Iraq Constitution to be the best thing since New Coke, I mentioned the whole British thing, talked about how the land was split and “kings” were made out of thin air and even went into the failure of making a Western style democracy in Lebanon. Others brought those up and added even more. These led to other discussions on the history of the region, the culture, the religious differences and problems, how most Westerners keep making the mistake of thinking that they think like us, arguing on whether or not freedom had the same meaning to them that it has to us, whether or not we should go into Africa and dethrone a few genocidal tyrants there as well, etc. You also tend to say things that would indicate that you know a great deal less about the area, its cultures and its history then you claim you do.
Short version: We all know quite a bit about the region and the history. Maybe even more then you.
“How many times do you keep repeating the same fraking mistake before you wake up and go: Ah, that don’t work!”
See, this is where I find your argument to be at its weakest. Your point here seems to be that we messed it up in the past and all we will ever be able to do is mess it up. With Bush and crew fully in charge, we WERE messing it up. We now have a chance to undo some of that and maybe do a few things right as we get out of there.
“Bin Ladden, where are you? Security starts at home, not 7000 miles away.”
Not always. Going after Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan did a lot for our security. We shouldn’t have pulled our forces off of that to go into Iraq. Besides, we can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. There is no reason that we can’t address security here while fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.
“I wonder how we would have felt if Britan had decided at the outset of our civil war that since they were the worlds power they were morally obligated to dictate the results and fix our problems.”
Much like your Africa analogy, your Great Brittan analogy is silly and full of holes. The biggest being the circumstances involved in how, why and when we went into Iraq. When I have the time to type up twelve or so pages, I’ll get back to you on the details.
“How about this, our moral obligation ended when they elected their government last winter. The people chose their leaders, it is now time for those leaders to either live or die by their elected authority.”
I’m sorry, no. We did a whole lot of stuff that makes their job harder then hëll and their stability laughable.
“If they are as we say a duly elected government then it is time for that government to solve it’s own problems.”
They will in time. But right now they are dealing with an infrastructure that we bombed to all time lows for this generation. We crippled their country. We share in the responsibility.
“> We have yet to bring any of those things back up to pre-war levels.
Not from the standpoint of trying.”
Yeah, we tried. But the big problem we had was Bush, Rummy and crew made no after plan and would not give us the numbers to get the job done right. Had we had the higher number of troops, we may have been able to secure areas better. We may have to commit to a plan that would put higher troop levels into Iraq for a year or so and then slowly scaling that back over the next two to three years as Iraq is rebuilt. What we have been doing is the equivalent of a child trying to make a sand castle at the low tide mark while high tide was coming in. Now that child (Bush) may have some adults coming in to yank his butt up the beach a bit and show him how to make a better castle as well.
“Russia doesn’t want us there, China neither. Half of Europe calls us idiots and wants us out of there. Really when you are at the bottom of the pit how much father can you fall? The UN already thinks we are a pack of imperialist dogs. So we get a second black eye in the world’s opinion, zippy doo da. Those who hate us will have another excuse to do so as if they needed one. Those who want our money will continue filling container ships with their wares and shipping them to us. The world will not come to an end.”
Hey, YOU’RE the one who brought up what the world will stomach, think and let us do to back your argument. Now, to counter one of my points, you don’t care what they think because it doesn’t matter one way or another and they’ll criticize us no matter what we do. Fine, if the rest of the world doesn’t matter because they’ll criticize us no matter what, lets get criticized for doing the right thing.
“Hit a nerve have I? :-)”
No, you’re just getting asinine with that point and coming off as a twit.
“I’ll remember that at the next soldier’s funeral I get a call to document. “
Clue for the clueless: You’ll be called to document funerals for soldiers even in wars that DO carry your personal stamp of approval. That was another asinine comment on your part.
“John Wayne syndrome.”
Nice way to blow off and insult the troops you claim to support and care for. Just because they disagree with you doesn’t have to mean that they have John Wayne syndrome or some other hero complex that you can think of. Maybe, just maybe, they just have integrity.
“Iraq could easily have chosen someone else than Saddam, china, Iran, Russia.”
We could have easily chosen someone other then Bush. Didn’t happen. Can’t change that or the facts that sprang from that reality. Plus, Iraq didn’t exactly choose Saddam. If you knew half of what you claim to know about that region, you would never have said that.
“Well it looks like my failing is in assuming that the change to the “rules” of dealing with mental cases or hi-jackers on planes is universal common knowledge.”
“I figured you could fill in the blanks.”
Well, it has been widely discussed and many know of it. You just didn’t make a clear point. You talked about the “rules” and about airline staff. Then, at a later point, you posted a disjointed paragraph about PASSENGERS and terrorists. See, passengers are different then crew. I filled in the blanks by assuming that you were talking about what you were writing about and not what you were apparently thinking about at the time.
“Yes, my fault to assume you think logically.”
No, your fault for not proofing your posts better and making sure that you’re saying what you want to say rather then what you think you said.
“Please read the rest of what I said in that paragraph. I said no army can stand up to the majority of the country’s populace.”
Yes. And all the mass graves are filled with, amongst others, the people who spoke out against or acted against Saddam. Some of them did try. And the died for it.
Bill Myers,
“Brian Peter has crossed the line into troll territory. I’d suggest you refrain from providing him with any further satisfaction.”
I don’t think he’s a troll, but I won’t keep going in circles with him. I just have a different reasoning.
Brian, on this topic, is a bit like a perverse reflection of Bush. I’ve been very careful to point out that there are several options and outcomes for Iraq. I’ve not once claimed that a predicted outcome of mine will be the only outcome and that there is no possible way for others’ ideas about what may happen to come to pass.
The closest I’ve come to anything like that is expressing what points I feel may have more moral weight. And I’ll cop to that being a personal thing rather then a factual thing. Still, Mulligan and I did that way back over whether or not we should go into Africa or not and walked away just fine with each other because neither of us mistook POV for hard facts.
It seems that Brian doesn’t want to separate those two things.
Brian talks like Bush. His view IS the way the world works, the way all things will happen and no one else can make a prediction that is not simply repeating his predictions or they are 100% wrong. And he doesn’t need any other facts other then his facts to back up his one and only way the world will ever work and has worked before.
I’d meet him halfway on some of this easy since it is POV. I realize that, since we’re playing in the prediction business with this conversation, neither of us will be proven right for years or decades to come. Hëll, we could both be proven wrong by the passage of time. He doesn’t seem the type to want to acknowledge that fact. No real point in going around in circles with that mindset and with no end in sight.
You know what? I just spent three hours of shift dealing with a crazy person who was off his meds and peeing on himself. While at lock-up, another officer brought a guy in who, unknown to the officer, seems to have swallowed some of what would have been evidence against him (crack) and starting freaking out six ways from Sunday. They both started some reeaallllyyy out there rants.
Even after all that, I can read Mike’s posts and he still doesn’t seem to come off that sane.
To claim that hate crime = genocide is a wrong argument in my opinion. might even call it ridiculous, but I don’t think that should be considered a personal insult against Mike. There is always something unpleasant about someone’s opinion not only being challenged, but rejected completely. But this is sometimes inevitable in an argument, even if it remains civil. We could walk away from that by agreeing to disagree.
It could also be said to Mike’s merit that his belief on this issue is because he cares so much about racism. Something I can relate to. I also had arguments about similar subjects with people I consider good friends.
The bigger problem in that argument was labeling anybody who disagreed with Mike’s equation as racist. This was personal, and should come to an end if we can end this argument.
The hostility and insults that have also taken over the arguments on both sides should also come to an end.
————
I agree with what Jerry said about Brian in his last post. I know where Brian is coming from, but he’s too certain, too ready to claim historical certainty.
Mike-“I’m not sorry for hammering the point that the only virtue of denying “ANY racially motivated murder” matches the plain wording of “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]” in the definition of genocide is sheltering racism.”
In this post, Mike, you point out the problem with your position. “ANY” singles an act out, IE, makes one of something. Unless someone murdered the very last person of a group, a single murder cannot be genocide. Now, personally there are few people in the world I look at lower than some of these sect-ist(because the only race involved is human) unthinking, God, I can’t even think of a simple phrase to describe how low these people are. The problem here is semantics. ONE murder cannot be genocide. What the Nazis did at the camps–THAT was attempted genocide. One backward thinking worm with a gun, no matter how ambitious, cannot commit genocide. Hëll, if if God forbid he kiled twenty, then that’s serial killing, not genocide. The problem isn’t the the killing in the definition, it’s the scope. Genocide you kill the entire population. Hate crimes, you kill individuals. I’d almost say that genocide IS a massive hate crime, but that doesn’t necessarily follow then that all hate crimes are genocide.
Now, you might take this and once again lump me with the Bills, but you know what? Aren’t too many people in the world finer to be lumped with.
Bill Mulligan, you cannot name a single virtue in denying “ANY racially motivated murder” matches the plain wording of “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group].” That isn’t personality. That’s spinelessness.
Oh, did a presidential election take place in your fantasy world, Jerry? Why, that must solve everything.
So you’re saying two murders qualify for genocide, then. “Zed, we won’t scare the macacas unless we kill two of them.”
It must be comforting for you, Jerry, and the Bills, to know that macacas only mourn their dead in two or more.
Sean Scullion, try not to let the door hit you in the Tim McVie when you leave a room.
Jerry C, Sean Scullion, Bill Mulligan — I have a suggestion. Let Mike have the last word on the genocide “debate” and on anything else he’s angry about.
Mike has accused us of being bad people and it is natural to want to defend ourselves. But I feel confident that a willingness to walk away from this will speak louder than any insults or accusations that can be thrown our way.
Posted by: Sean Scullion at November 15, 2006 08:00 AM
Now, you might take this and once again lump me with the Bills, but you know what? Aren’t too many people in the world finer to be lumped with.
Right back atcha, amigo. 🙂
Sean: hey, you tried. As have others.
Mike is either a deeply troubled young man or exactly and precisely as creepily obnoxious as he comes off. One possibility to be treated with contempt, the other with pity.
At least he has put the lie to the old adage about how if you repeat something loud enough and long enough people will come to believe it. Apparently there needs to be some additional qualifiers added to this; what you say can’t be too stupid and/or presented in a way that reminds one of a petulant child stomping its feet and holding its breath when mommy won’t buy him candy at Wal-Mart.
Well, if nothing else, Mike has shown that the central theme of my movie, that extremists of any ilk aren’t a good thing, is fairly true. Now I just have to finish the stupid thing and sell it. The script, not Mike. Don’t think I could get too much for him. Brian’s not there yet, as I see it, although the fact that both my son and my brother, and I once had a friend name Brian Peters, might be coloring my views.
Jerry, just curious, since that guy swallowed the evidence, can he be held anyway? (No, I’m not going to go swallowing evidence, now.)
To what are you clowns referring to?
You cannot name a single virtue in denying “ANY racially motivated murder” matches the plain wording of “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]” — and that’s somehow my flaw?
In the spirit of reconciliation, I would like to remind you all that everyone — and I mean everyone — is welcome to join the nascent political party I’ve decided to name “The Guy Party.”
Our platform consists of pørņ, football, beer, and snacks. I will be our presidential candidate in 2008. Knuckles will be my running mate. Den, Rex Hondo, and Roger Tang will be offered high-level cabinet positions. And Craig J. Ries will be Secretary of Making Sure We Don’t Choke on Pretzels.
This party will have something for everybody, including women! Yes, while us guys sit around in the family room, watching football and pørņ while eating, drinking, and burping, the women will have the rest of the house within which to congregate and complain about us with each other.
“The Guy Party: we like pørņ and we’re pitching a big tent.”
🙂
Not so fast, pinko. I throw my hat into the ring for President of the Zombie Apocalypse Party, formerly The Association of People Who Don’t Understand the Concept of the Word Acronym (SPECTRE).
Our planks:
1- GUN CONTROL- Everyone has to own a gun. What are you gonna do when there are zombies around and all you have is your hand with some skin on it?
2- FOOD- Everyone has to have a 1 year supply of food. Ramen noodles will be supplied to the poor. After that you’ll have to get your own (See #1 above)
3- EVERYTHING ELSE- Who cares? Zombies! Big picture here, people! Nobody’s getting nominated to the Supreme Court anyway, so what differenece does it make. Jeeze.
You say “But Bill, isn’t it actually highly unlikely that zombies will walk the earth?” First off; you are so naive. Secondly, this is all good advice in the event of all manner of scenarios: collapse of the global economy, nuclear war in the middle east, Willie Nelson caught washing hair in the nation’s water supply.
So pørņ is a sharing moment with Guys for you?
I wasn’t serious about your circle-jerks, Bill Myers. I only brought it up in the first place because of your public undressing of people who disagree with you.
Isn’t your time with erotica better shared with the person who really should be your partner? Don’t you get tired of living the lie?
Is the National Anthem going to be changed to the song from Men In Tights? Because you know you gotta be a man to wear tights!
Wait a second. No one wants to see me in tights. That’s the whole reason I’m not a superhero.
So you’re saying two murders qualify for genocide, then.
Your powers of logic are incredible.
Unfortunately, they work on a different plane of existance from the rest of us.
Actually, soon-to-be-President Mulligan, that last scenario of yours is most frightening. I hear Willie Nelson is on the Head and Shoulders 10 most reviled list.
But, can I trade in my gun for a new pommel for my broadsword? Nothing in life is finer than cleaving the undead in twain with a fine piece of Scottish metal. Besides, once you run out of bullets, what are you going to do, throw the gun at the zombies like some bad guy from the black-and-white Superman TV show? Whereas with a broadsword, you can have a oomplete ballet of undead carnage. Think about it, people! (And none of these epees or katanas, we need REAL blades!)
Don’t ask me how I know there’s nothing finer than cleaving the undead. I’ve been sworn to secrecy by both the church and my wife.
“Jerry C, Sean Scullion, Bill Mulligan — I have a suggestion. Let Mike have the last word on the genocide “debate” and on anything else he’s angry about.
Mike has accused us of being bad people and it is natural to want to defend ourselves. But I feel confident that a willingness to walk away from this will speak louder than any insults or accusations that can be thrown our way.”
At other times it would have been important to counter his argument because of the risk that others will be influenced by it. It is important to correct misconceptions, and some really dangerous misconceptions become easily widespread. But in this case I doubt there is even one other person, on these boards or elsewhere, who accepts Mike’s argument.
It is done.
“You cannot name a single virtue in denying “ANY racially motivated murder” matches the plain wording of “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]”
I believe I did. I actually answered in much more detail than the argument deserves. If you choose to ignore it, that’s your business.
———–
About the pørņ, I have ambiguous feelings about it. I’ve heard arguments for and against it, and I haven’t decided yet. If you can refer me to sources for further research that would be helpful. (I’m kidding, of course. I can get my own pørņ).
[I recently listen to a flaming feminist presentation about chauvinism in Sci-Fi].
About the zombies, I think zombism is a valid life style choice. Don’t knoock it till you’ve tried it. They have their own reach tradition, which we should respect.
Micha,
“To claim that hate crime = genocide is a wrong argument in my opinion. might even call it ridiculous, but I don’t think that should be considered a personal insult against Mike. There is always something unpleasant about someone’s opinion not only being challenged, but rejected completely.”
It’s not Mike’s opinion that I’m rejecting. It’s Mike. This is neither his first dance here nor the first time that he went full speed over the cliff of insanity.
Sean,
“Jerry, just curious, since that guy swallowed the evidence, can he be held anyway? (No, I’m not going to go swallowing evidence, now.)”
Yes, that’s what stomach pumps and lab technicians are for. 🙂
Plus, this guy was brought in for trespassing on his former girlfriends yard and harassing her. They didn’t bust him for drugs. We’re guessing that he had some on him and, rather then get tagged with yet another narcotics arrest, he gulped it when he saw the cops pulling up and he knew that his escape options were limited. Ðûmbášš should have chucked it onto the roof.
What’s with all the hate against the living-challenged? They’re really just a misunderstood culture. I’m sure if we were to sit down with them, discuss our mutual goals, we could come to some kind of mutually agreeaaharhaahrhaharhrhghghgh………
According to the Zombie Handbook (the book I will forever hate myself for not writing) the single best thing to have would be a tire iron. Good for beaning zombies, good for breaking into shelters, good for opening cans of food.
Sean O’Scullion, while the broadsword is undeniably effective, I think it’s overkill. Against a horde of zombies the arm will eventually tire. A katana is much better for one handed decapitations.
About the zombies, I think zombism is a valid life style choice. Don’t knoock it till you’ve tried it. They have their own reach tradition, which we should respect.
Believe it or not, that’s sort of part of the premise of the sequel to our recently concluded movie THE FOREVER DEAD. I’m about 2/3 of the way done on the script and it’s getting to the point where I’ll have to make painful cuts to get in all the stuff I want.
Posted by: Jerry C at November 15, 2006 12:11 PM
Ðûmbášš should have chucked it onto the roof.
I will remember that for next time.
Bill Mulligan,
I want in on your party. However, your planks are ok in concept, but flawed. I suggest you go out and find Max Brooks to be your Secretary of Planning & Preparation. Barring that, get your hands on his book, The Zombie Survival Guide. Or, as I’ve read it cover to cover several times, just give me the job. What does it pay?
Let me show you the skill of Zombie Outbreak forethought.
Sean,
“But, can I trade in my gun for a new pommel for my broadsword?”
No. But you may have both as well as a mace.
The gun is a good weapon for when your immediate situation has gone completely South, but you don’t want to use it for just any encounter. The rapport of the weapon will be heard by other zombies in the area and, if you were only dealing with one or two zombies, you may find yourself quickly overrun with hordes of zombies that that you would have never encountered otherwise.
The broadsword is great for quick dispatches of small numbers in open areas. The size and weight guarantees that the head will be cut off or, if you miss the neck, that the skull will be split. It’s only two drawbacks when dealing with more then one zombie come in the weight and momentum throwing you off balance if you miss (thus, setting you up for an attack by the other zombie(s) you face) and fighting in confined spaces.
The confined spaces, especially when you’re with others, is the greater of the two problems. You may not be able to swing your sword or at least do so without hitting members of your party. Thus, I give you your mace. Small, but long enough to give you a reach advantage over the zombies and weighted on the striking end. You can swing from the side, from above or even upwards with enough force to crush a skull. In low, tight environments, the mace can even be swung in the same manner as a hammer towards a nail. The nail here being a zombies forehead.
And you don’t have to reload it.
“Don’t ask me how I know there’s nothing finer than cleaving the undead. I’ve been sworn to secrecy by both the church and my wife.”
Ah….. The Order. I understand.
Going alllll the way back to PAD’s original post:With a smartening-up Bush and a newly energized Democratic majority, let’s see if the government finally gets on the right track.
Well, here we are a few days later; the Republicans have just nominated an unimpressive Senator to head the party and brought back Trent freaking Lott as minority whip. On the other side of the isle, Nancy Pelosi seems to want her leadership staffed with un-indicted co-conspirators and impeached judges. As one person has pointed out, it looks like we are in for a 2 year dumb-off between the two parties.
One ray of light–looking at some sites both conservative and liberal, it looks like the bases of both parties are very unhappy and not afraid to say so. There will always be those who will defend their party under any circumstances, trading thinking for blind obedience, but it’s good to see that not everyone is swallowing the Kool-Aid.
“…a tire iron. Good for beaning zombies…”
Yea, but do you know how hard it is to get one of those things out of a Zombie’s skull if you catch them wrong? Plus, you run into other problems if you don’t go for decapitation.
I’ve found that zombies that used to be hard left libs tend to have a skull so thick that you have to hit it three or four times to crack it. The only thing worse then them are the zombies that used to be hard right, repeate the party line republicans. You can crush their skull in two places before hitting their tiny, atrophied little brains.
That’s why I have hopes that the last election means that the moderate middle is once again growing and thinking. When Z-Day comes, it’ll be easier to hit the target.
“Republicans have just nominated an unimpressive Senator to head the party and brought back Trent freaking Lott as minority whip.”
Yeah, saw it on MSNBC while I was typing the zombie posts. I figured I’d just ignore it and keep typing on the slightly more intelligent topic.
Gonna be a fun two years.
Gonna be a fun two years.
Somewhere, in a small Catholic church, a writer for the Daily Show is lighting a candle.