I picked up a pair of hemp jeans, Patagonia brand, the other day. I know that you guys care about everything I wear, but hemp is especially awesome. They’re my favorite pair of pants now. It wears lighter than denim, has a cool dress-casual look and the material is practically unbreakable. Of course it’s expensive since hemp, which will kill you from smoke inhalation before you get a buzz, is for some stupid reason ILLEGAL to grow in the United States. I got mine for half off and I’m not telling you where [actually I don’t remember]. I’m just sad that society (and my wife) has rules against wearing the same pair of pants every day.
So, when will America do the sensible thing and legalize the best clothing material since silkworm poop? I’ll start the bidding at never, or as soon as the cotton lobby collectively resigns to take up a career in the musical theater. Whichever comes first.
Consider this an open thread.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Cool way to start off the thread Tim. Here is another interesting fact about hemp.
Do you know that a 10 by 10 foot area of hemp plants can produce as much paper as an entire acre of trees?
So who is all out there tonight? Let’s chat. :)
The Disenfranchised Voter
Whoa had my facts wrong it is actually that 1 acre of hemp can produce as much paper as 2 to 4 acres of trees.
Sorry about that. Still a surprising stat.
Kimmitt
Why would production in the US be an issue? Couldn’t one just grow the hemp in (I dunno) Argentina and weave it in Bangladesh?
Tim F.
That’s a good question. I believe that there are protections on trading it as well, although I don’t know what they are.
The Disenfranchised Voter
I’m sure there are. Anyways, I’m heading out for a bit. Dane Cook is hosting SNL and that guy makes laugh so hard my stomach hurts.
I’ll be back later.
Jon H
So, apparently the military has decided to get strict about not accepting people with visible tattoos.
Good to know we’ve got our recruiting quotas taken care of!
Jon H
The expense is probably because of the small market, which doesn’t have the economies of scale that exist for other materials. And there may be a certain amount of exploiting the buyer; the hempness provides cover for an inflated profit margin. (Similarly, Apple’s use of non-Intel processors has helped cloud the issue of price/performance for their machines. The move to Intel next year will clear that up, and it’ll be interesting to see how they respond. I myself am dying to get an Intel powerbook to replace my iBook.)
I mean, so much clothing is made overseas these days, that saying “Of course it’s more expensive, it’s imported!” makes little sense.
ppGaz
The evil boss at my organization got fired Friday.
I’m so happy, I could just shit.
If you could imagine Steve Carrell’s character on Office, without the pretense at being likeable … you’d have a good idea of what this guy is like.
Many people are looking skyward this weekend and saying, “There IS a dog!”
Erg
Levis were made out of hemp back in the day, but good luck getting them to admit it today.
demimondian
Fooey. Apple’s use of non-Intel processors did nothing to cloud the issue of price/performance — the Jobs reality distortion field was the sole contributor to that achievement. The only question over the last five years has been how much slower Apple machines were than x86 machines that cost half as much.
Of course, now Apple-bots will talk about how their new machines are performance competitive with Intel-based machines running Windows. Of course, that ignores the fact that Intel-based machines run about 70% of the speed of AMD-based machines.
Ancient Purple
Hemp will never be legal to grow in America because there are people who think that hemp is marijuana. Of course, these are the same people that think that “Reefer Madness” is a documentary and that people smoking pot to relieve pain from glacoma or other diseases will turn our youth into drug addicts.
When will hemp be legal to grow in the US? About the same time a blizzard hits Phoenix.
RSA
I picked up a hemp/silk blend shirt, cheap, on the beach this past summer. It’s much more sturdy than it would seem, given its lightness. I’ve looked around for other hemp clothing, but the little I’ve found is a just bit too casual for me to wear all the time. What I do have is great stuff, though.
DougJ
Extreme rendition.
God help us all.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Yea but isn’t the AMD processor better for games?
And isn’t that all that matters…
(I have an intel myself)
Steve S
AMIGA RULES!
Gold Star for Robot Boy
What got him canned?
scs
Maybe Wal-Mart will start selling them soon.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Ahh, so it seems like people are showing up now. At 2 am! Whodda thunk it?
So scs, being the Bush supporter that you are, what policy issue does Bush piss you off the most with?
scs
None, the guy is my god. Which Bush policies do you love?
scs
Although to be fair, I must admit that Bush and Co does seem to have a sneaky side. I kind of blame Rove for that though. Rove doesn’t realize what’s good in an election might not be so good in governing.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Hmmm, off the top of my head, his stance on gun control.
scs
Gawd, what IS his stance on gun control. Does he have one?
The Disenfranchised Voter
Enh what I really meant is that I do like how he didn’t renew the ban on assualt weapons.
I am a firm supporter of the Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights. The right to bear arms is one of the foundations of a democracy–without it we are helpless.
scs
Get out. A leftie gun lover. Who’d have thunk?
The Disenfranchised Voter
Heh, you’re impression of me is a little off.
I’m a libertarian. And like most libertarians, I think Bush sucks ass.
scs
By the way, you were wrong about the Mad Cow disease thing. They HAD imposed a ban on giving cows all animal feed after the Mad Cow scare, but they have just amended that to allow young cows to get animal feed. I’d look up a reference now but too lazy. I just know I read it a few weeks ago. I can’t believe no one at all complained about it.
scs
I think most libertarians hate everything. It’s in their party platform.
The Disenfranchised Voter
So I was wrong, but I was right?
Young cows are still cows afterall…
heh.
scs
No I thought you thought that they were always allowed to give young cows animal feed. But for a period there, they weren’t.
P.S. Just looked at you site. Pretty cute. You need some more commenters though. How did John get all of us on here?
The Disenfranchised Voter
Cute?! I don’t want you to think my site is “cute”…damnit!
And there are two reasons why I don’t nave many commentors. 1) I rarely update and 2) I’m an asshole when it comes to politics.
I think that sums it up nicely.
scs
Yup. I was gonna say, but I didn’t want to be rude…
(joking)
scs
Shouldn’t we feel bad for using this site to chat? We might bore all the readers – not that there are any now. They’re all lame, they’re sleeping.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Ha!
So scs, where do your political beliefs come from. Since you are relatively young, I would assume they come from your parents (as did my political beliefs when I was your age, which wasn’t that long ago).
Though I’m curious as to how you came to your beliefs.
scs
What do you want an autobiography?
Okay, brief synopsis. Always thought of myself as a Democrat. Was a Clinton fan. Would have voted for Gore but I skipped that election (I don’t live in FL, wouldn’t have mattered). Didn’t have any feelings for Bush one way or the other at first. Then I didn’t like the way Dems acted after the election tie and the way they treated Bush after that. Was for getting rid of Saddam, supported the Iraq war. Didn’t like how Dem’s treated Bush in second election (Gephardt “MiserableFailure.com”) and voila, a new Rebublican. Well sort of. More like an Independent. The End.
scs
Oh, plus the older I got, the more I realized that being a Dem today is kind of equivalent to being a Communist or a Green or a Pagan. I’m not any, further rightward drift.
The Disenfranchised Voter
You sound like a liberal hawk basically…ala Hilary Clinton.
Do you plan on registering as a Republican or an Independent when you turn 18?
The Disenfranchised Voter
Right…
And being a Republican today is kind of equivalent to a Fascist.
scs
Yeah I like Hillary’s ideas a lot. And please, I am over 18. I ain’t that young, although I may act like it occasionally.
scs
You haven’t met my friends.
scs
I mean my leftie friends, by the way. I don’t have any rightie friends actually.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Hmm, I thought you said you were 17. How old are you and what did you register as–if you don’t mind me asking that is.
scs
I never said I was 17. Other people said that to poke fun, because I talked about highschool once. I neither confirmed nor denied. See that’s how urban myths are started. I don’t want to say my age or even my sex, although most people have guessed that by now. If you give your stats, you are stereotyped.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Blah blah blah. 21 male, registered independent.
Stereotype me.
scs
Okay, you asked for it. Maybe we should have biography day on here, where everyone writes a blurb about themselves and posts a picture. Could be fun.
Anyway, it was fun sharing, Dis, but now I am going to blog with my eyes closed. Later.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Heh, you forgot to answer my questions. I showed you mine, you’re supposr to show me yours…
Whatever though, good night.
allan
A bit late for the conversation I see.
I have a hemp hat I picked up in Costa Rica, very cool.
Yeppers, I reckon we won’t get to grow hemp until the war on drugs finally dies.
That could be a long ways off.
Grotesqueticle
Jeebus. You hemp enthusiats give the rest of us tree-huggers a bad name.
John S.
Way to go Bush administration!
Pressure to catch terrorists led agency to make arrests with little evidence
A highlight:
Now let me channel some of the conservatives that post here…
You gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette!
John S.
The hits keep on coming…
Report: FBI faked terror probe documents
Standard operating procedure for this administration:
Retaliation against whistleblowers? I’m shocked!
John S.
This is a pretty snarky rant about propaganda, the Bush administration and Pajamas Media. A highlight:
For the record, I don’t think Pajamas Media is a paid mouthpiece of the Bush administration. Thats seems just a little too sinister for me.
ppGaz
Nobody knows yet. Supposedly we will get more info tomorrow. Rumors are flying. The guy has made a lot of enemies, so he may have made one too many.
ppGaz
Are you emjoying the GWOT this weekend?
What Your Country Has Come To
As they say, read the whole thing. It’s a head-shaker.
Jody
I, um, do wear the same pair of pants for a week at a time. Underwear, however, is a different matter.
DougJ
You really should try hemp underwear then, Jody.
Perry Como
We are unlawfully imprisoning them over there so we don’t have to unlawfully imprison them here.
Now, this may sound the like the rantings of a moonbat lefty but, WTF? Why does the CIA remind me of the KGB or the Stasi now? They kidnap a person that “has a name that sounds like a potential terrorist”, drug him, toss him in a prison, all without verifying he’s he person they want. Then when they realize they fucked up enormously they let him go and want to cover it up.
I know, I know. I hate Freedom and Democracy, or some crap like that. What is up with this country and the tacit acceptance of fascist behavior?
Steve S
The past year and a half I’ve been dating a Russian immigrant and have been immersed in their culture.
I can confidently say that you know nothing about what Communism is.
Steve S
For any government gone wrong, there will always be apologists who do it for free.
Perry Como
In other news, if federal spending continues at the current rate the government will need to raise the debt ceiling again within a month. If the Republicans were in charge things would be different.
ppGaz
Damned good question.
In my callower, younger days, I used to make fun of middle America, as if it were populated by a bunch of overall-wearing hayseeds, rubes who would fall for anything.
Well, I had an chance a few years ago to experience middle America in a certain way that revealed to me that the people out there are the most generous people on earth. They’ll give you the shirts off their backs to help another person in trouble.
What would make people like that avert their eyes from the Patriot Act and the New KGB-CIA?
Only one thing: Fear. Pictures of buildings falling down.
Politicians know that Americans are deeply terrified of the crazy ragheads, and they can exploit that fear to get away with the most abominable things. Abominable things, like the Bush administration.
Until we grow up and get over this fear of the world, we are vulnerable to being fucked over by our own government, big time.
ubernerd83
Since people seem to be using this thread for introductions, and I’m new to the whole commenting thing: I’m a 22 year old college senior majoring in political science at DePauw (yes, with a “w”) University. If forced to use a label, I’d call myself a liberal Democrat (which is a rare thing, indeed, in rural Indiana).
ppGaz
Greetings, ubernerd. You have joined a fascinating cast of characters here.
Your first assignment is to figure out whether all of us are just the creations of DougJ.
First there was the Turing Test. Now, the DougJ Test.
Horshu
Regarding industrial hemp, Ron Paul (R-TX) has tried recently. http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/393/hempbill.shtml
Perry Como
This is the disconnect I don’t really understand. I grew up in the heart of middle America, went to college in a town in middle America, so I know a bit about middle America. Fear was never one of the things that struck me as a part of the way of life.
I didn’t see pictures of buildings falling, I looked out of my window. When I go into the office, I travel through the crater that was those buildings. Yet people in my hometown are more scared of terrorists than those of us who are most likely to be directly affected by terrorists.
Fear is powerful weapon. And it seems the terrorists have wielded it quite effectively.
OCSteve
How about anger? I’m not above saying I am all for retribution. Nothing makes my day like reading AQ number whatever just kept a date with a Hellfire missile.
Does that mean I cut BushCo more slack in other areas than I normally would? I’d say it does. So I guess I am agreeing with you ppGaz – My anger over what happened on that one day causes me to cut this administration more slack across the board as long as they keep going after the scum.
ppGaz
It’s only effective if we are terrorized. And it looks to me like our government is terrorized. Acting hysterical, and crazy.
I think the people are a lot smarter and stronger than the potatoheads in Washington think they are.
Look, 911 is not going to happen again. We’ve hardened our air transportation system to the point where it would be near impossible to pull off that same attack again.
However, a rogue nuke is not impossible. To me that’s a real threat. And a bio attack is not impossible … a lunatic with some powder and a few stamps came close to paralyzing this country just 4 years ago.
We need to continue to harden against real threats … that’s where safety resides. Not in waging a foolish and irresponsible war overseas that, if anything, is inspiring new terrorists on a daily basis.
Tim F.
What if Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with the scum who attacked us? Would you still cut the administration slack across the board? Treat the question as a hypothetical.
ppGaz
In some quarters, but not in general.
Anger is useful in the short term. But long term, it is not generally helpful or productive. It results in errors of judgment, and it fosters ego-driven decisions.
Anger is where you get foolishness like “Wanted Dead or Alive” and “Bring it On.” Really, that’s juvenile. We need adult thinking and adult leadership.
Tim F.
Fear: how many color-coded terror alerts have we had since the 2004 election? Funny isn’t it.
OCSteve
Yes – even as a hypothetical. IMO the world changed that day and we could no longer be complacent. The ME has to change, and even if this is not the ideal way to go about it, something had to be done.
Dave_Violence
them’s some smokin’ pants.
Tim F.
Be careful of an error that I call the “kinetic fallacy.” Even in dire circumstances where the impulse to act is practically unbearable, acting is not necessarily by and of itself better than not acting. If you fail to address the original problem and/or make the situation worse then the impulse to act was counterproductive.
ppGaz
Well, that’s just ridiculous. “Ideal” way to go about it?
No, completely wrong, destructive policy, which has accomplished little at great cost. “Not ideal” my ass.
But the worst part of your argument is, it’s better to do something stupid that nothing at all. THAT is the worst part of this policy. It’s dead wrong.
If the money and energy wasted in Iraq had been well invested, we’d really be a lot safter and better off today. Hardening of vulnerabilities, improvements in intelligence and surveillance, border improvements, and focus on a world full of loose nukes …. those are things that would make us safer and less open to threat from the crazies.
Perry Como
I don’t think it’s funny. The reason for no terror alerts is obvious: The terrorists are running scared now that The Best President Ever was reelected. They know that President Bush will stay the course, root out evil wherever it hides, and transform the Middle East into a Democratic region. Iraq is just the first domino in this theory.
ppGaz
Like I said, ubernerd, the DougJ test.
What Doug means is that we’re not hearing enough of the good things about a theory that has no support in history, nor in empirical evidence, nor in any rational extrapolation of half a century’s worth of policy …. nor does it rest on any plan for success or scheme for implementation that can be explained to the people. The people of either Iraq, or the United States.
If we had more of the good news, we wouldn’t need blogs to blather on and on about the bad news.
Something like that.
OCSteve
By “not ideal” I mean some things could have been done better. Primarily more boots on the ground and sealing the border with Iran and Syria, and really putting the Saudis on notice.
The overall strategic vision of taking Iraq – I’m on board 100% with that. Just look at a map of the ME. The bottom line is that if nothing had been done to shake up that area of the world today, much more drastic action would have been necessary in a few years.
I agree with all that – except I think it should have been in addition to, not instead of Iraq. Every non-defense budget item (I’m including the border in defense) should have been cut to the bone and we should have done all that in addition to Iraq.
ppGaz
No offense … I believe that you truly believe that.
But it’s an idea that is, to be honest with you, mad.
The notion that you can’t figure out what to do with a troublesome region in the world, so you should go in and invade and take over a country with a long history of religious unrest and violence …. is crazy.
This is the reason why some of us on the left hate .. and I mean truly hate, and despise … this Bush government. The idea is based on magical thinking, a stubborn insistence that you can will something to happen because you want it to happen.
In a dangerous world, that kind of thinking gets people killed and can easily fuck up the world worse than it already is. And worst of all, it’s BASED ON LIES. The big lie is that the people running this fucked up experiment know what they are doing and can make it turn out a certain way. WELL, THEY DON’T AND THEY CAN’T.
Jesus, how simple is that, and how obvious does it have to be? You can’t just wake up one morning and decide to invade Mesopotamia and then have it all turn out like a goddammned fairy tale. If you want to dream that, and write a novel about it, fine. Knock yourself out.
BUT THE PEOPLE RUNNING THIS COUNTRY ARE KILLING PEOPLE TO TRY TO PROVE A NUTTY THEORY THAT HAS NO BASIS IN FACT.
That’s beyond wrong, that is the most destructive and despicable thing any government of this country has ever done. It is unmatched in its evil stupidity and dishonesty.
Ancient Purple
Steve, I can understand this perspective, but what I don’t understand is why you are willing to cede some of your rights in giving the administration some slack.
Honestly, are we really safer now that the FBI and CIA can get library records of individual citizens? Are we safer now that an American citizen has been held for years without charge?
I am awfully perplexed as to why the administration could not have achieved the same results in preventing another 9/11 while playing within the rules. I don’t know about you but I am troubled by the rampant treatment of the Constitution as an “inconvenience.”
Look, we have a problem with child molestation in this country, but law enforcement types have never needed carte blanche to go into libraries and find out who is reading “Lolitta.”
I am willing to work with this administration to help them achieve what they need to fight terrorism, but I demand they do it following the rules.
Stormy70
The left’s idea is to sit back and be attacked, then hit back.
Iraq sent money to terrorists and trained terrorists. They were in violation of a cease fire, and it was time to take Saddam out. I am not scared, but I’m not going to trust the anti-war party with National Security, especially when they want to treat terrorists picked up on a battlefield like a US citizen. Iraq sits in the middle of three of America’s enemies, yet the left discounts any strategic value to Iraq?
The Democrats have no strategy for a decade long War on Terror, and seem to never produce one when asked. I guess we have to wait for 2006, according to Howard Dean to get the Democrat’s plan. Of course, the fifth anniversary of the attack on America will deserve a response from the Dems. I’m glad they are not late to the war with a plan that took five effing years to emmerge. Nope, the Dems won’t be trusted on National Security in 2006, or probably in my lifetime. Too busy being outraged that noone listens to the rantings of deranged Bush haters.
Perry Como
I think it’s important to note that Liberals want to make babies with terrorists. That’s right, the Left wants terrorist babies. They want to coddle the Islamofascists, feed them French cheese and make sweet love to them by the fire.
It’s important that we win the war on nouns, lest nouns come and do something nouny to us. We must preemptively strike at nouns wherever they lurk. We will turn over every dictionary, every encyclopedia in order to root out the nouns.
Tim F.
Yes Stormy, we understand that you don’t want to be taken seriously.
ppGaz
Not even DougJ could fashion such crap and pass it off as legitimate comment. He’s talented, but not THAT talented.
ppGaz
See, I rest my case. Doug’s version is funny, witty.
Stormy’s is just ….. drunk.
Ancient Purple
Right, Stormy, because no Democrats were in favor of toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Stormy70
That’s why they were calling it a quagmire within weeks, and questioning the strategy. What is the Democratic long term plan for the War on Terror, anyway? I have yet to encounter it. Or is it to bash every plan that Bush has, without having to offer their own. Like I said, they are not serious with National Security matters. Drunk or not, (not, unfortunately) I still don’t see any plans offered by the anti-war left, except everything America does is WRONG.
The Disenfranchised Voter
What planet do you live on?
Joey
Exactly what I was thinking.
Joey
Holy shit! My best friend is a freshman at Depauw. That’s a great campus. I’m also one of the few liberal dems in rural Indiana, but I’m a freshman at IU, so I’m not all that alone. I saw a ton of Bush stickers while I was visiting Depauw.
ppGaz
It’s Planet Stormy, where every thought is aligned with rightwing nuttery and Karl Rovisms before being shipped.
Generally, the idea is to deflect everything with bot-generated attacks on Democrats.
It’s a good fit for Stormy, because you can do it drunk. No actual thought is ever necessary.
When cornered, she’ll revert to “{tv show name here} is on … this is boring” and run away.
OCSteve
I don’t see it as just a troublesome region though – I see it as a cancer. A cancer that was spreading. Ignoring it doesn’t help – only intervention of some kind, painful as it might be – has some chance of helping.
I’m curious as to what you believe the alternate history would have looked like. Seriously – I’m not being sarcastic, I’m interested.
Say we had stopped with Afghanistan. Ignored Iraq.
My version: Sanctions were failing and mostly useless. Iran would be about where it is now – hard at work on the bomb. This alone would have forced Iraq to resume work on theirs – essentially an arms race between Saddam and the mad mullahs.
The terrorists, denied a base in Afghanistan, and with Pakistan a new if somewhat reluctant ally, would have consolidated somewhere else. Most likely Syria, Iran, and Iraq. Set aside whether Saddam supported terrorists before the war – my contention is that he would have moved more openly in that direction.
Now with Iraq and Iran in a race for the bomb, at some point within the decade we would have been faced with one of several extremely unpleasant possibilities: let them use it on each other, let one of them use it on Israel, let one or the other or both provide a weapon to terrorists to be used on us. We would have still had to intervene, but at a potentially staggeringly higher price.
ppGaz
In terms of that region, this is the central issue IMO. And the only one that really matters.
Saddam’s interest in this stuff would only go so far as his interest in stealing would take him. Saddam is not crazy, he’s just a thief. He wasn’t out to take over the world, or even the Arab world. He was out to have his palaces and his millions in cash and people waiting on him hand and foot. He was a mafia godfather on a large scale.
The real threat is Iran. So how does being mired in a failed, expensive, deadly and apparently endless experiment in Iraq help us, exactly, with Iran?
I am also serious, although I have to confess, even if you have a rational argument on this, I am not going to throw down my opposition to either the war, or to Bush. Because if Iraq was a placeholder for us in the ultimate struggle against Iran, then ….
1) That policy should have been spelled out from the get-go
2) Some plan and coherent policy and strategy would have to have been assembled, vetted and presented to us
3) Some semblence of planning and execution toward such a policy goal would have to have been visible in the implementation of the Iraq step, in order for us to buy into it now
In other words, it is not good enough to go back and retroactively suggest a strategy or policy that clearly was nowhere to be seen three years ago. While this makes for interesting chit-chat, it doesn’t feed the bulldog.
Here’s the bulldog: Your neighbor’s kid just got blown up in Iraq. Are you going to look him in the eye and try to sell him an ends-justify-means, retroactive would-coulda-shoulda policy and strategy to justify this war? Because if I’m him, and you do that, we are going to have serious problem, because you can’t run away from me fast enough. I’m fast, and I’m pissed.
Stormy70
I can’t help it if the fall line-up is excellent this year. See all previous threads for my positions, no need to argue with the left when they don’t put up any ideas to debate.
Just “Bush Bad! Very bad! Stormy drunk!”
Why would I think it’s boring after seeing the same post from the same people since you guys all started posting here? Never changes. I just like to break up the monotony of you guys patting yourselves on the back for the latest Bush bashing post. I am contrary that way.
John S.
Correction: As far as THIS lefty is concerned, everything the BUSH ADMINISTRATION does is wrong. Please do not conflate an an entire nation with its temporary powers that be.
As far as a plan goes, at this point as willing as the administration is to listen to anyone but themselves, I say to hell with anyone else coming up with a plan to bail out this administration.
Let Bush and company drown in a pool of their own bullshit so that the stench of it reaches so far up to heaven that nobody will consider voting for these clowns again – EVER.
ppGaz
Yes, it’s accurate, to the point, and succinct.
Bush IS bad. He’s probably the worst single thing that has ever happened to this country. And I don’t know if you are really drunk or not, but you sure do a good imitation of someone who is.
Your point?
MAX HATS
Mr. Steve, you consistently refer to “the terrorists” as if they were a monolithic entity. I.e., the Americans, the Iraqis, and the terrorists. That is dumb.
There are, and were, different terrorist organizations with — hold onto your hat here — different ideologies, structures, methods and enemies. The terrorists Saddam was supporting were not the same as the terrorists who blew up the WTC. The terrorists who blew up the WTC and Saddam were, in fact, at each others’ throats.
I apologize for the patronizing tone, but unfortunately when confronted by statements like yours, I have to choose between patronizing in assuming ignorance, or insulting in assuming malice, and I wouldn’t want to sink to the latter. Implying someone would play fast and loose with facts of national security importance just so they could win an argument for their chosen political ideology? Oh lord, I would never want to imply that of anyone.
Also, hello everybody, as this seems to be the Big Introductory Thread. I seem to be another leftish commentator on this ostensibly rightish site. I’m sorry.
Stormy70
Why would you announce to your enemies your intention to use Iraq as a strong basing point for Iran? You don’t give away your future strategy in a war you want to win. FDR never vetted his entire strategy for WWII with the American people. He wanted to win.
Iran is now surrounded and we have a land base closer to China in case they start to feel their oats. Syria and Saudi Arabia and Iran surely noticed how easily we deposed Saddam. India has become a strategic partner with the US, which keeps Pakistan and China on their toes. India is building up their Navy and becoming quite the US ally. Western Europe has become too unreliable and milque-toasty to consider true allies. They can’t even field a decent military.
Iraq was a key linchpin in the overall War on Terror, and a good place to keep all our hardware in case any other Middle East countries feel like giving it a go. Saddam supported international terrorism and he needed to go.
Stormy70
And if America happens to get hurt, then I guess you have to break a few eggs, right? Who cares about doing something about terrorism if it happens to get the Republicans out of office. Thanks for stating the true policy position of the Dems. “Let America suffer for daring to elect Bush. We don’t need no stinking plan.” I can’t wait for 2006 if that is the platform of the Democrats. National Security? We have no position on it until 2008.
OCSteve
I wouldn’t expect you to :) No more than you’ll ever convince me that the whole thing has been a useless and wasteful experiment of some kind.
I’m interested in the conversation and hearing your arguments. I don’t mind having my viewpoints challenged – I think they need to be and some of you guys force me to think things through more than I might otherwise. If I wanted a right-wing echo chamber I wouldn’t be here – because John’s comments section is a far cry from that!
In all honesty I’m disgusted with this administration (and all politicians in general) – I just don’t see a clear alternative to the present situation.
Why don’t you guys get Lieberman to run again and convince the inhabitants of DU and MoveOn to let him slide through the primaries? I’d likely switch parties and vote for him.
ppGaz
To the American people. I don’t give a fuck what enemies think. They can go fuck themselves. If I am president, I care about the mutual trust and respect between me and the people. I am not going to start a war and fail to tell them what my strategy and policy is, because if things go wrong and they find out I have not been straight with them, then I am screwed, and the country is damaged.
Jesus, don’t they teach any civics down there in Texas?
When did you start thinking that the exposure of policy in terms of important things like war was to be centered around what enemies might think, before taking care of what AMERICANS might think? We run the country and pay the bills, Stormy, not the shitheads in Washington DC.
ppGaz
Well, if you know me, then you are kidding around.
If you don’t, and I hope you don’t in this case … I wouldn’t vote for Joe Loserman if he were running for treasurer of the PTA. I detest the man and everything about him. He’s a lying, mealy mouthed politician. We already have those in the White House …. don’t need another one.
MAX HATS
Syria and Saudi Arabia and Iran surely also noticed how overstrectched our military is, and how it will remain so for the indefinite future. We’ve tied our hands behind our back in reference to those countries. Sure, in ten years when Iraq is resolved one way or the other, Syria may be quaking in their boots. In the meantime, we have given every country we could threaten with military action a free pass. We have left ourselves only diplomacy with which to intimidate Syria, and the Iraq war has shot our foot there too. Once reliable and powerful allies around the world are now deeply distrustful of America.
So with what means are we to contain Syrian aggression toward’s its neighbors? Magical soldiers, or magical allies? Bush has effectively replaced security with a fairy tale.
Perry Como
Wow.
That’s like announcing to a beer that when I open it, I will drink it (which isn’t a bad idea right now…).
The same Iran that had the younger generation shunning the mullahs and embracing Western culture until the US decided to set up a beachhead in Iraq. The China comment is just incredibly stupid. Besides China holding $800 billion in US foreign debt and being one of our largest trading partners, they are perhaps the one country on the planet that could stand up to the US in a conventional war.
I guess you don’t mean Great Britain (and don’t forget Poland!). And you must not mean Germany since I’m sure they would remilitarize if we let them. The rest of the planet may have a problem with that though. But on the other side of the world, Japan is considering getting the bomb.
Now you’re just stealing my lines.
Stormy70
Bush announced his intentions in Sept. of 2001. Why would he have to put out our war policy to the people when no other President has done the same? He was elected by the people twice to do his Constitutional duty to keep America safe. People reelected him in 2004 to keep on prosecuting the War on Terror. He does not have to publish our intentions, especially if it puts our overall War strategy in danger. You do not tell your war enemies how you intend to defeat them. You want to surprise them and keep them guessing.
Perry Como
We aren’t overstretched at all. Rumsfeld is trying to prove that we can have a smaller military force that relies on technology. We don’t need the boots on the ground to get the job done, blah, blah, Rumsfeld is a tool.
We could easily pull up base in Germany and South Korea and stop the insurgency in Iraq in short order. But that would wreak geopolitical havoc. You would have Japan rearming due to the threat of China and North Korea and no forward bases with US forces. You would have Germany rearming which would cause most of the sane world to crap their pants.
As of now we have Russia selling a billion dollars worth of advanced weaponry to Iran. Why would Russia do this? Because in the next few decades we are going to enter a war for resources (or already have), namely fossil fuels. The US now poses a threat to the vast wealth of resources throughout the Middle East and central Asia, since we’ve decided pre-emptive invasion is acceptable as long as we are protecting our interests.
ppGaz
Are you serious? You are sounding like DougJ again.
American shall march off to a billion-dollar-a-week war with the expectation of thousands of casualties and years of effort and it’s all based on some secret plan that the government knows about, and we don’t?
TDV was right …. what fucking planet DO you live on?
You sure aren’t living in the America I grew up in. That crazy shit will not fly, lady.
Seriously, sober up and try it again tomorrow. Whatever shreds of credibility you might have had left around here ….. going fast.
Stormy70
Which ones? France was never reliable. Germany is not powerful anymore. Britain is not a country in Western Europe. Poland is in Eastern Europe, where we have decent allies.
To counter China. Japan and India have strengthened their alliance with the US, while Bush has been in office. India is building up their Navy while France cannot defeat their own suburbs.
Why would I care about the feckless allies that have not provided their own security, but relied on the US to save them? I don’t care what a bunch of whining so-called Europeans think about anything, frankly. With no children to keep their social safety nets in place, they are dying on the vine.
ppGaz
Yeah, I can think of one: Get these lying, crazy sonsabitches out of Washington before they drive this whole thing over a cliff. Start with the House of Representatives, and thereby turn off the money faucet to these maniacs, and make them start acting rationally.
Pull the plug on the Republican insane asylum. Then and only then can you start fixing security.
John S.
If America gets hurt, thank the dipshit you voted for.
Your cowboy is in charge, so if you have problems with the waro n terror talk to him. Republicans losing for the next few decades is icing o nthe cake.
I don’t represent the ENTIRE Democratic party, but nice try. You could have a been a bit more shrill, but no more shrill than the position of the GOP: The Democrats let us do it! (Please give us some ideas.)
Stormy70
Which President put their entire War plan to the people? Which one laid out exactly when we would invade a certain country or where we would send out troops to start the invasion. Which President told our enemies when we would begin bombing and where? Which President said we will set a base at this location to attack Country B on this date? Really, I want to know.
OCSteve
All right – yanking your chain a bit. Thanks for the discussion. Someone mentioned beer – sounds good. Enjoy whats left of your weekend all.
John S.
Fascinating. There are no children in Europe? I guess I just see loads of dwarfs running around then every time I visit.
I had no idea DougJ was really Stormy.
Stormy70
The Democrats will not win an election without a Plan for National Security. And that is OK with me.
Theseus
What you mean like Kosovo? Or the Balkans in general? You have ancient hatreds and wars that predate even Islam, and yet we went there, didn’t we? How “insane” was that? And, to boot, in a war even more “illegal” than this one with virtually no strategic value or importance whatsoever for America (Europe is another matter), on the side of Muslims BTW, for which we get virtually no gratitude for. My parents are Greek Orthodox, so the contempt and disdain, even hatred, they hold for President Clinton is real, though misguided and wrong.
And yet, I still haven’t found any viable or legitimate vision by the left or Dems in general for how to combat increasingly rising Muslim militancy, assuming in fact, they believe it’s an actual threat in the first place. Those who are serious (and I’m giving most of you here the benefit of the doubt) propose solutions, in between your Bush-is-evil-incarnate-liar, the-worst-president-in-history-blah-blah-blah, Iraq-is-a-quagmire-we’re-all-gonna-die rants, that I think have pretty much failed or are no longer enough.
Well, I guess if you say so it MUST be true. Going after the weeds, withoug looking for and eradicating the roots is ultimately an exercise in futility and that’s what I mostly hear for the “realists”. There is a cancer growing in the Muslim world, one that we’ve ignored for TOO long as long as it bought us so-called STABILITY and RELATIVELY CHEAP OIL. Normally, I’d say FUCK IT, it’s not our problem, let them clean up their own mess. But when they export their fucking cancers to our societies, whether in America, Europe or wherever, then it ceases being only their problem and becomes ours as well.
First, calm down. Your hysterical rants tend to dramatically dimish any worthwhile and legitimate points you’re trying to make.
First of all, I don’t know where you get this “fairy tale” crap. Every serious policymaker, writer, pundit, etc that I’ve read who believes in this “nutty theory” as you call it, takes the enormous difficulties and costs very very seriously, so cut the bullshit. The Ken-it’s-a-cakewalk-Adelman’s horseshit, the “salesmen” if you will are the exception, not the rule, otherwise it’s the same thing as saying that the views of Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky are the mainstream views of the Dems or that because Dems oppose certain Bush policies, it’s the equivalent of saying they support the terrorists.
If you disagree with our views, then explain your reasoning behind it. And I’m sorry, the “because it’s Messopotamia, the Iraqis have never had democracy before” argument simply does not cut it. You never explain why, in due time and with enough help, the Iraqis would be incapable of producing a somewhat imperfect but viable and functioning consensual government. WHY NOT THE IRAQIS?? WHY NOT ARABS?? Because, if the alternative is true, that Arabs and Muslims are fundamentally incapable of reconciling their Islamic heritage with modernity, with democracy, with equal rights, etc, then I fear for all our futures. And the Muslims living in our societies are doing a relatively decent job of fooling us with their acceptance of our values.
You mentionened “fear” as a motivating factor in a lot of President Bush’s support. I agree. But not for the reasons you state. You see, I don’t fear Muslims so much as I fear ourselves and what we are truly capable of when push comes to shove. My fear is that some Islamic nutcase will succeed somehow with the help of WMDs, in taking out a Western or “infidel” city with tens of thousands, or even hundreds or God forbid millions of casualties. I fear the fury that that will unleash. Imagine Rome destroyed, or Paris, or London or New York. The Europeans, in their wars, managed this century to slaughter over a hundred million souls, more if you count the Soviets. Historically they are extremely ruthless killers, their present so-called pacifism notwithstanding. America, also has shown tremendous ruthlessness if she feels she is being threatened. Today, AQ and their ilk are seen as a threat, but for most people in the US and especially in Europe, certainly not an existential threat. Imagine a world if that was so. Perhaps I’m being paranoid, maybe, who knows, but within that context, Iraq is a small mid to long term price to pay, to hopefully lessen the chances for that world from ever emerging. Take that for whatever it’s worth.
John S.
And the Republicans will never win another election WITH their plan for National
SecurityInsecurity.And that is fine by me.
Perry Como
Because we are their military. Do you want Germany to rearm?
Okay, I opened the beer and took a drink, but wha…? What map are you looking at?
Japan is interested in getting nukes because they are strengthening their alliance with the US? Again, wow. But kudos on the France joke.
Those are normally called “treaties”.
Thread drift to social security! Sweet. People that live in glass houses, etc.
Stormy70
You aren’t seeing as many as you used to see. Here is one article addressing the population decline of Europe.
Here is another from the UN. (The UN still sucks.)
MAX HATS
I’m sure the prospect of being embargoed from Polish goods is enough to make any ‘ol despot quake.
What?
ppGaz
How compute this nonsense? You want some easy, pat answer, so in lieu of one, you’ll choose a crazy, dishonest course of action that drains our money and our military and begins without a plan and after three years as convinced about 2/3 of Americans that it is not making them safer.
Great. Thanks for stopping by, you’ve been very helpful.
John S.
Shorter Theseus [Edited for length]:
Iraq is just like Kosovo. All Greeks hate Clinton.
Democrats don’t believe in terrorists because they have no plan I am willing to hear. I don’t care if Bush is fucking up because he has a plan I like.
Islaam is a cancer that is infecting the world. [Editors note: Ironically, this is how much of the Middle East views America.]
Every neocon viewpoint I’ve ever read confirms that if we turn Iraq into a Democracy terrorists will vanish, so don’t tell me otherwise.
If you disagree with my views, please be as overly verbose as I am when responding.
I fear another terrorist attack because that means the administration I support will blink out the entire Middle East in a nuclear holocaust, because they have a proven track record of lashing out at the wrong people – like Iraq.
See? You could have condensed that whole diatribe and saved yourself and anyone reading it a whole lot of time.
ppGaz
History explains it. You can start with the British experiment of 80 years ago and go from there.
How do I know that it’s a fairy tale? Because you are three years into the war, and you’ve only had a published “plan” for a week. Nobody can be stupid enough not to catch on to that.
Plan is in quotes because it’s not even really a plan, anyway. It’s a collection of platitudes and arguments resting on proof by assertion. But what kind of car salesmen bullshit artists would think that we’d fall for the idea that we’d have a war for three years, followed by a nice printed plan for winning it?
You guys are amazing, the horseshit you try to peddle in here. Really, you have balls, I have to hand you that.
Good for you. The world awaits your neatly designed, 35-page published “plan” for how the useless war in Iraq is going to save you from that. Because right now, about 2/3 of Americans, and all of the rest of the Western world, think that you don’t have any such plan.
Stormy70
Here we go again: to counter China’s military buildup. Japan just happens to be a democratic ally of the US now. Japan can go nuclear anytime it wants, since it has the technology. They probably already have gone nuclear, they are just not sharing that info with the world. I trust a nuclear Japan over a nuclear Iran. Considering Iran just threatened Israel, I would be ready for interesting times ahead.
This still does not change the fact that the Dems have no plans for national security. I wouldn’t mind debating the merits of an actual plan, but I guess I’ll have to wait until…2006? 2008?
Sorry, I have a date with Legolas, Frodo and Aragorn. Oh, and my husband, too. We are rewatching the Two Towers and Return of the King. We are warmongers, don’t you know? Plus, it gets us in the mood for some Narnia goodness this Friday.
I did enjoy this type of debate. Not boring. Good bye.
OCSteve
Ok beer-thirty but 1 more. That sums up nicely what I was indirectly getting at. It’s fun to make fun of the French – but is there any doubt that if Paris is incinerated they are not going to nuke something in return? Same with us. If NY or DC goes the public outcry for retaliation will be too much to ignore – no matter what party is in control. If they ever succeed in this, Mecca and more is likely gone. Every mosque in every western city will be razed and Islam as a religion will be outlawed throughout the world.
Think that sounds nuts? Think it through. The course we have taken to this point will seem like patty-cakes if that ever comes to pass.
John S.
First link – bogus. Big surprise there.
Second link says:
Gee, I guees we’re running out of kids to fuel our Social Security, too. Let’s just do away with it altogether, eh?
ppGaz
Bingo, right on time. Toss some shit out there, and then run away and watch tv.
If you don’t care enough about this stuff to stick it out and have a real discussion, why do you waste everybody’s time?
Cowards don’t cut and run, Stormy.
:-)
John S.
ppGaz-
Looks like you were right to begin with, except with one minor correction:
Lo and behold!
That’s {tv show OR movie name}.
Stormy70
Unlike most of you, I have a life outside of Balloon Juice that requires my attention. I have spent an hour on this board and I am not blowing off my husband for a discussion with a bunch of geeks on the internet. He is done with football and I am done with the geekiness for the day. We call that quality time here in the real world. I will have more time to geek out in Feb. when work and life permits. I will be back to part time work, then. I know how you guys miss me when I am gone.
The shit I tossed was repeated upthread.
John S. this is for you.
Stormy70
Democrats do. I guess that is the “plan”.
ppGaz
See, that’s lame. Not your best work. You are on your way to go do something else. Fine.
Go watch your movie, and then come back with your helmet on.
ppGaz
Har! I have an assignment that keeps me on call 24 x 7 x 52. I have a situation around the homestead that would drive you to drink. I can’t give more details but let’s just say I take care of everything here with the exception of the babysitting …. a 6-month-old is here 60 hours a week.
When there’s nothing else to do, four cats who all think they are the Queen of Sheeba will keep anyone on their toes. These animals range in age from 17 to 4. It’s a little like having four two-year-olds who pee on the floor when they get a notion, who are finicky eaters, and who fight with each other all the time. Oh, and they all like to sleep with a human. So that they can be first in line at the food dish in the morning, you see.
Otto Man
Yeah, those TV shows and movies would disappear if you didn’t watch them. Thanks for propping up the entertainment industry.
To quote Bart Simpson, “This poetry isn’t going to appreciate itself, people!”
The Disenfranchised Voter
Oh Please. Narnia looks like a steaming pile of shit compared to LOTR. The movie will not up to its hype.
The Disenfranchised Voter
*not live up to
leefranke
Not sure what you consider expensive, but this retailer seems to have resonable prices.
http://www.buddhasplace.com/Merchant2/hemp.htm
ubernerd83
Joey:
Who’s your friend? Chances are I’ll at least recognize the name, since we’re such a small campus. My AIM is ubernerd83 if you feel the need to chat. We can commiserate about how much it sucks to be a liberal Dem in Indiana.
scs
Okay, since this is an open thread, what I’m wondering is, how come US troops even bother driving on roads with all the roadside bombs anymore? If I were driving, I’d be driving in the desert or the sidewalks or over people yards. Plus I wonder what the range of a typical roadside bomb is. If you were on top of a double decker bus, lined with concrete blocks underneath, would you still be blown up? Why don’t they drive at night and shut off all lights and electricity when they drive by so they are hard to see coming. Something needs to be done about these roadside bombs. There has got to be something.
Tulkinghorn
I call this the “Don’t just do something, Stand There!” strategy. Sometimes you are better to stay still, on defense, with your reserves ready and prepared, so that you can deliver a devastating counter-attack. Arguably, we did exactly that when we took out the Taliban after 911.
As a lawyer, I often tell my clients to sit still and let the other party make the next move, whether to sue first or to make the first offer in a negotiation. The unexpected counterclaim or the hard-nosed counteroffer can often be the much better move.
We are now in a tactical dilemma that, in Chess, is called “zugzwang”. That means you are forced to make a move, but can only make strategically bad moves. No matter when we leave Iraq, it will not be a really well-functioning state. No matter when we leave it the withdrawal will look like a retreat. We can not put in more troops because Bush did not build up a few more divisions before invading, and we can not pull out without a civil war ensuing that will cost us the benefits we sought when we invaded, and which will cost us dearly in strategic and prestige terms.
In short, Bush screwed the pooch, and it is now our move. Once we get over the cognitive dissonance of realizing we set the terms for success and still managed to lose by those terms, we will know what to do.
Tulkinghorn
Narnia does not compare to LOTR. Tolkien hated allegory and the middle-brow sensibilites that Lewis champions. Lewis put some compelling character development into his allegories, which Tolkien never managed to do convincingly.
If you have read the Narnia books, and like them, I expect you will enjoy the movie. Otherwise there will some huge WTF moments (Santa Claus !?!) that you will not be able to get over.
Theseus
You’re completely misrepresenting everything I said, which is predictable, if not disappointing. Just two small points to show what a completely clueless and partisan assfuck you are: there are a great many on the political left I agree with, if not completely, then partially: Joe Lieberman, Tony Blair, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, to name some of the more prominent. Furthermore, there are a great many on the left who genuinely support the Sith-like neocon “fairy tale”, just disagree with some of President Bush’s decisions and policies.
Second, I didn’t say Islam was a cancer you dishonest fucktard. The cancer, for anyone who is not an intellectuallly small minded piece of shit, is the rise of radical Muslim militancy (or Wahhabi/Salafi Islam) which is incubated in the failed political, social and economic Arab and Muslim states and which is now being exported into almost every society that has a substantial Muslim presence. It doesn’t help, psychologically, to be living in countries that where once in the long shadows of a once great, powerful and advanced civilization and that, historically, were viewed as the infidel “Dar Al Harb” or “House of War”. Furthermore, I grew up with Arabs, Christians and Muslims, and one of my closest friends is a Lebanese/Palestinian Muslim and my aunt’s (who is Greek) longtime boyfriend, is a Muslim Iraqi Kurd. So yeah, according to your pathetic “logic”, I guess I would consider them a “cancer”. Dipshit. So here’s a small idea for your tiny brain, the next time I make a comment, IGNORE IT as I’ll do the same for your intellectually stimulating commentary. Otherwise, go fuck yourself…
ppGaz
Bwahahahahahaha!
Steve S
Right now, it appears to me that the Democrats have more of a plan than the Republicans do.
The Republicans just shout a lot more, and think that’s a plan.
Theseus
I see. Well, I guess that’s it then, “history explains it”. So Arabs, Iraqis, or Muslims in general are incapable of establishing a reasonably accountable consensual government because “history explains it”. Very deep. They are doomed to failure. What do those little brown A-rabs know anyway? Only a strong, brutal and ruthless tyrant, that’s the way to deal with them fellas. My, that’s such a “progressive” point of view!
It’s also nice to see the faith you have in democracies as opposed to tyrannies, thugocracies and dictartorships in being generally safer, more stable and secure political, social and ecomomic environments. Environments which allow the greatest number of their citizens to participate in and in which said citizens have more chances to enhance their own security, wealth, well-being, etc.
Not that it will make much difference to you at this point, (convinced as you are about the so obvious futility and stupidity of my arguments) but it’s not that I believe democracy will eliminate radical Islam, I don’t. But I believe it will eventually empower those individuals, the so-called followers of “moderate” Islam, who will be able to discredit the ramblings of a Bin Laden or a Zarqawi, not because it’s in our national interests, but because it will in theirs. But alas, these are simple arguments and points or “neocon fairy tales”, for simple folk and they often lack the required viguer of the vastly more intellectually sophisticated and nuanced commentariat of some of the left, for instance, especially those clever, worldy members of the “reality-based” community. Oh well…
scs
Yeah that’s why my (somewhat large) mortgage company did when I spent a long time threatening to sue them. I was surprised they didn’t respond to me because it was obvious I was going to win since I had everything in writing, so I’ll admit it did take me back a bit. But then I did sue them and of course I won. So even though I settled for the regular amount I asked for in the beginning anyway, they also had to spend more money on the legal hours for their fancy corporate lawyers preparing papers and traveling long distance to the courtroom and then waiting there and then coming back, which couldn’t have been cheap, so in the end they lost more than necessary. I think they followed your “stand still” advice a little too much.
So you gotta know when to hold ’em and know when to fold ’em. Or as another saying puts it, sometimes the best defense is a good offense.
scs
I agree with Theseus. If you all don’t remember, it’s not just little brown people who have a hard time starting up a democracy and engaging in cross-ethnic love. The little white people of Europe had a pretty hard time of it throughout the years too. Read about all the little warring tribes of Europe with their different dialects and religious differences. Modern countries of Europe were not established all that long ago either. Read about how Bismark tried to unify Germany, while not 80 years, maybe 120 years ago. Oh and then they had a few little things called WWI and WWII. So if little white people overcame their problems and did it years ago, why can’t little brown people do it today?
Kimmitt
There is a baseline current of fear in most Midwestern places, fear of losing the current ways, current days. Bush taps directly into that fear, because Bush represents and feeds the worst in us, rather than the best in us.
Steve S
Then why don’t we let them?
Why this fucking nanny state bullshit, where we have to tell them what’s good for them?
You just don’t seem to understand why people are opposed to the Iraq war and Bush un-doctrine, do you?
scs
Well, they are pacifists. I can understand wanting to be a pacifist. Heck, I wouldn’t want to go fight in a war. But that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be fought sometimes. I wouldn’t want to be a policeman or a fireman either. Those are dangerous jobs, and sometimes people get killed in the line of duty. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have policemen or firemen.
Kimmitt
I guess it depends on whether or not one defines “sometimes” as “when the guy in charge has his panties in a wad.”
ppGaz
The worldwide failure rate in moving to a stable democracy in the last 100 years is around 80 percent. In the Arab world it has been 100 percent.
Iraq has failed in the past because it cannot escape from religious and ethnic forces within its borders. There is no reason in history nor anywhere else to believe that the end result of regime change now in Iraq will be other than civil war followed by a theocracy. Nothing is in place now which will prevent that from happening once American protection is removed. It doesn’t matter how many Iraqi troops there are who will wear a uniform and march around for the cameras. Unless they will be martialled, trained, equipped, organized, fed and paid and led by a stable government for which they are willing to fight, they’ll disband into squabbling factions at the drop of a hat.
The idea that Iraq would turn into a stable country just because we removed Hussein will go down as one of the great tragic conceits and stupidities of modern man. There’s no basis for the idea other than magical thinking.
Last but not least, the words of William F. Buckley, who said this recently with regard to Iraq in particular:
Democracy depends entirely upon the submission of the minority.
scs
Damn dude, what are you doing up this hour? Anyway, things change. We have. So can other people.
Kimmitt
Due respect, but I’m not thrilled about wagering thousands of lives and billions of lives on “Things change.”
Anyways, this is moot; the war exists as a political football, nothing more or less. Once it is inexpedient for the Republicans for us to be in Iraq, we won’t.
John S.
Aww, I’m sorry I hurt your feelings little fella.
Am I now? It wouldn’t seem that way…especially judging from the way you’ve gone completely unhinged. But, if I cut through all the expletives and smoke, it sounds a lot like:
How dare you cut through my bullshit! I like politicians that are Republican-lite – and Obama, too. There are at least five people on the left (Lieberman!) that think that the ends justify the means of this war and that we can transform the Middle East by democratizing Iraq.
Second, I never said Islaam was a cancer. Just certain parts of Islaam that are becoming increasingly popular with our help. It doesn’t help living in a once great civilization that is now treated like a child by America, but they just need to get over the fact that we are superior. I don’t really look down upon Arabs, though, because I have a lot of ethnic friends who agree with me.
Please leave me alone, because I can’t take having my diatribes boiled down to their essence. Mommy.
John S.
I love you revisionist historians and your false analogies. Please share with us all your comparitive analysis of a European country that had a hard time with Democracy as a result of it being bestowed upon them by a foreign military occupation.
Therein lies the HUGE difference that renders this line of thinking completely impotent. Any Democracy that flourished in the Western world came about as a result of the people seeking Democracy from WITHIN their country – generally precipitated by a revolution. This Iraq War does not qualify as such an event.
I don’t think Democracy can’t succeed in Iraq, I just think the only chance it had was if the people rose up against Saddam themselves because they yearned for freedom as much as the Americans or the French did.
John S.
This is a favorite of Republicans because it says “Have faith in somethng that logic tells you doesn’t make sense.” This goes along with such other pseudo-philosophical sloganeering such as black is white, up is down, right is left, etc.
I know it makes for a nice bumper sticker, but offense isn’t defense. It’s offense. If you want to test my notion of this, go shoot someone based on your conviction that them looking at you funny is evidence of their threat to your existence. See if trotting out “my best self-defense is pre-emptive offense” keeps you off death row. I don’t think you’ll be happy with the results, though.
Jon H
“a lunatic with some powder and a few stamps came close to paralyzing this country just 4 years ago.”
Frankly, I’m just about convinced that was part of the effort of ginning up a war with Iraq.
The investigation, of course, went nowhere. Rather like the FBI investigation into the forged Niger documents.
Ancient Purple
Really? Then explain why it is that I gave 110% backing to the toppling of the Taliban and have given 0% backing to the War in Iraq.
If that is pacifism, Webster needs an update.
Steve S
Whose a pacifist? Me? yeah, right.
I’m angry, because it’s now clear that this asshat we call a President dropped the fucking ball in going into Afghanistan… refusing to commit the necessary forces because he was holding back to attack Iraq.
Yeah, I’m a pacifist.
Try again.
ppGaz
Yeah, as long as we are stratigtening out the record … I am no pacifist. I’d gladly go over and shoot OBL and his gang myself if they’d let me.
But I believe that war is justifiable only under very limited conditions …. direct, profound, unambiguous threat, and no other viable choices. None of those conditions was met in the current war. Not even in the ballpark. “Choices” here does not mean “convenient choices”. Other choices may have been unsatisfying, but that is not a reason for war. War is the worst thing that can happen. It’s only justified under the worst of conditions and circumstances.
Opposition to a particular war does not make one a pacifist, any more than choosing a salad makes one a vegetarian.
Krista
Not to mention the fact that US allies, who helped support the US by sending troops to Afghanistan, are now seeing more and more of their troops being killed, because the President basically said, “We were attacked! Help us! Okay, you guys got it under control? Well, we’re off to get rid of Saddam…just for shits and giggles. That whole Afghanistan thing? Oh yeah…good luck with that!”
Krista
Bush is like the buddy who asks you to help him move, and then fucks off somewhere else, leaving you with the heavy lifting. And then when you call him on it, he gets the wounded-offended look, and says, “I thought you were my friend! Friends help each other!”
Jon H
BTW, Bush’s little brother Neil has apparently been traveling around Asia with the good Revered Moon (aka, “God”), trying to raise money for a 51 mile underwater tunnel between Alaska and Russia.
Jon H
Whoops, forgot the link
John S.
Though it seems the blanket label of ‘pacifist’ doesn’t apply to many of the other left leaning posters, I have to admit that it does apply to me.
As a general rule, I do not believe that violence ever achieves a solution to the stated goal of most wars. In fact, the only war I really see as essential was WWII because of the grave threat to humanity – particularly my own people. I think reasonable folk can agree that Hitler was a unique threat – the likes of which the world hasn’t seen since (and I pray will never see again).
However, I am not so one-dimensional that my opposition to the current Iraq War can be summed up merely by stating that I am a pacifist, because it goes beyond that.
Krista
By the way, I love the thread title. It definitely piques ones interest. (Or maybe it’s just my filthy mind at work again…)
ppGaz
My favorite line is:
Bush is a guy who would throw a drowning man both ends of the same rope.
Krista
And then when criticized for it, would tell you that you’re hurting the drowning man’s morale. :)
ppGaz
Bingo.
Krista
Yay! Do I win a cookie?
Tulkinghorn
If the mortgage company did not have a counterclaim then they were stupid to let you take the intitiative. Once you filed suit, they were stupid to not make a business decision and try to settle.
When you fuck up, face the fact, do what it takes to get yourself out of trouble (ie pay off the people you wronged) and move on. That is what the bank should have done, and that is, essentially, what the US should now do in regard to Iraq.
The mortgage company was actually following Bush’s non-strategy of committing to hostilities, then not adjusting their strategy as necessary and then staying the course until their losing position gets worse and worse and worse. Why do people and nations stick to foolish and mistaken policies? Arrogance, obstinacy, deafness to criticism, refusal to face up to their errors, etc. etc. — it sounds like a pretty accurate description of W. administration.
And good for you for sticking it to the bank. It makes my heart glad to hear it. It is too bad you were not able to get them for multiple damages and attorney’s fees!
The Disenfranchised Voter
This reply deserves a nomination for most stupid answer of the year.
If you think the majority of the people opposed to the Iraq War are pacifists, you have a lot of learning to do.
rilkefan
Another introduction.
scs
Well I hope it wasn’t because you love and admire Saddam Hussein then.
John S.
Funny, just the other day scs was decrying how lefties “slime people who don’t agree with you”, and that such a phenomenon was conspicuously absent on the right – in her opinion.
And yet, she herself is quick to imply that if you oppose the war and are NOT a pacifist, then you ♥ Saddam (which of course could never be construed as a slime or insulting in any way).
What’s the definition of irony again?
The Disenfranchised Voter
Actually, this whole idea of “pre-emption” is a flawed and dangerous doctrine. The Iraq War was an offensive war, some would even argue an imperialistic one. Our job is not to police the world. I’m not even going to get into the fact that the Administration lied in order to gather support for the war.
With that said, I think that since we basically “broke” Iraq, it is our responsiblity to “fix” it. I think we need to wait until a somewhat stable government is set up in Iraq before we leave. However, we should not still be there come 2 years. We should begin to withdraw troops right after these December elections.
And most importantly, the Administrations actions in the led up to the war need to be investigated by an independent council.
John S.
I concur. But you have to break through the prevailing conservative dogma to understand where the notion comes from.
See above.
ppGaz
This is what I was saying 6 months ago.
However, I have changed my mind. I no longer believe that such a set of circumstances is likely.
If that is right, then every day that we stay there is basically just exposing people to risk, for nothing.
scs
Well that’s true. I would add to that list also “poor communication”, which I suppose was a subset of “refusal to face up to their errors” from someone. Their legal department didn’t seem to be aware of all the facts prior, i.e., that I had everything in writing and which companies their company contract out to. Which was kind of weird since I even told them about it beforehand, but I guess no one internally bothered to tell them and confirm, perhaps part of someone’s cya effort.
As for “It is too bad you were not able to get them for multiple damages and attorney’s fees!”, well the attorney was me and I’m no attorney (small claims court, which can go up to $15,000 here fyi- very handy) and I chickened out to ask for punitive damages. Still kind of kick myself about that though, that I should have at least gone for it. Oh well. Better a bird in the hand…
scs
Come on man, just joshing you. Lighten up.
P.S. How did you get that little heart sign? Cute.
ppGaz
The element Fe on the Periodic Table?
Steve S
Listen to this…
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5035613
General Odom was head of the NSA from 1985-1988, hardly a pacifist even by scs’s rather loose definition.
scs
Okay fine, I take back the word ‘pacifist’. I’ll put it more like, ‘you don’t believe in warfare to achieve future political goals’. Is there a word for that?
scs
By the way, what happend to our blogmasters, John and Tim? Missing in action. We have some pretty stale posts here these last couple days.
John S.
Ah, that’s a trade secret…
But seriously, if you’re on a PC, do the following:
Go to Start>>Programs>>Accessories>>System Tools>>Character Map. Then select a nice generic font like Arial and you’ll see a slew of characters listed underneath. Simply select one and copy it, then paste it in here. There are some cool things in there like ♪ ♫ ☼ ♀ ♂.
Anyway, enjoy. ☺
John S.
As you can see, though, some characters don’t show up.
ppGaz
Rather than try to work the problem backward, why not work it forward?
Ask your respondent: What is a valid justification for war?
And while we are at it, what is your answer to that question?
scs
Cool, mystery solved. Wow, I am really advancing. I just learned how to use italics here, and now this. Who knows what’s wisdom I’ll pick up next here.
guyermo
Tim,
It seems to me they decided to scrap the color-coded system shortly after the 2004 election. Convenient, that.
Steve S
Future political goals?
Are you still trying to find excuses for there being a total lack of WMDs in Iraq, and the proof positive that we now have that the UN sanctions worked?
What are you left with? Bringing democracy to the little brown folks?
[And I seriously cannot believe that it was President Asshat himself who used that statement in one of his speeches. It’s like this nation has become a parody of itself.]
scs
I think it is, to prevent the severe subjugation of people when all else fails. Especially if meets a sliding scale of criteria of us having superior militarly power to accomplish the goals and the goals being tied to our own self interests.
But with that, off to do errands. Feel free to ridicule me when I’m gone.
ppGaz
Absolutely not, no way, not even close.
America does not exist to provide bodies and equipment for wars of “liberation” around the world.
No family in this country has raised its kids to be used as fodder for saving some other hapless country from itself.
And whether you like to hear this or not, this country would not give a flying fig about Iraq if it did not have lots of oil, or were not key to a region with lots of oil. You wouldn’t even have heard of the place.
Your answer is just not even in the ballpark of acceptability. Sorry.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Not only that…quite a few of the foudning fathers specifically spoke out against using force to spread democracy to other countries.
ppGaz
I believe that a certain potatohead candidate for president in 2000 also spoke against this idea. Bush, I think his name was.
At this point, the Bushmonkeys would chime in with the always-hilarious “911 changed everything” chant.
Actually, of course, 911 changed very little about the world, other than perceptions of it. But even so, it didn’t turn the US into a country eager, or even willing, to go out and save the fucked up countries of the world from themselves.
If anyone doubts this, then take a closer look at the runup to this war. Saving Iraqis was not even on the radar in terms of the push to start this war. It was all about the mythical WMDs. It was all about a supposed threat.
Tim F.
Equating opposition to the Iraq war with any flavor of pacifism is simply dishonest.
Cyrus
Well, maybe reasonable folk could agree with that, but I’m often unreasonable… wasn’t Pol Pot’s body count much higher than Hitler’s? Wasn’t Stalin’s body count comparable? And how many tyrants throughout history would have done what Hitler did or worse, if not for the lack of technology and infrastructure?
There’s a series of books I like, the first of which is called 1632. (Come to think of it, between the geekiness and the setting, it’s very appropriate for this blog.) It’s a science fiction book, the premise of which is that by some freak cosmic accident, a small town in West Virginia was transported to central Germany in the year 1632 – the middle of the Thirty Years War. So you’ve got the almost-defunct local miner’s union forming the backbone of the army of the United States of Europe, radicals left over from the sixties and D&D geeks cooking up napalm to use when the Inquisition comes, locals barely out of feudalism trying to decide if electricity counts as witchcraft… etc. But anyways, the fact that something called “The Thirty Years War” ever happened is strong evidence that Europe – the whole world – was not exactly a prosaic, simple place until Germans got cars and big ideas.
This would be a long digression just to say that “Stalin and Pol Pot were bad too.” But your view of things sounds too simplistic. Hitler was not unique, there’s nothing genetically defective about Germans, and their culture did not just become massively psychotic for a twenty-year period and just as suddenly revert to its previous normalcy. The possibility for that kind of hateful insanity is in almost everyone. So historical examples of just wars (if you give the term “just war” any meaning at all) are almost certainly not limited to just declaring war on Hitler.
Cyrus
Seconded. The difference between “pacifism” and scs’s second construction is quibbling. They’re both incorrect descriptions of the opposition. There were a dozen anti-this-war arguments, as always, but I think the reasoned and impartial ones boiled down to “the stated reasons for this war* don’t make any sense,” and “war will be counterproductive re: the existing problems.” You can try to argue with those positions, but at least understand them.
I might be misremembering, but wasn’t scs’s position on intelligent design to teach the “controversy”? Too lazy to go back weeks and look. If so, I think I see a pattern forming.
John S.
No. Pol Pot’s regime killed between 1.5 – 2.3 million people between 1975-1979. Nice try, though.
No, it was actually much more. Since “the margin of error” with regard to the number of Stalin’s victims is virtually impossible to narrow down to a universally accepted figure, the most likely figure historians can come up with is 20 million. And not that it excuses a massive death toll, but Stalin’s killings weren’t a result of him trying to take over the world.
I don’t think you will find another in modern history.
Hitler was unique in the fact that he nearly acheived turning Europe into the Germanian Empire, which would have included the extinction of an entire race of people. Certainly genocide has occurred throughout history and certainly imperialism has occurred, but Hitler was a horribly unique juxtaposition of the two that yielded frightening success. Furthermore, I never said or implied there WAS something wrong with Germans, or that their culture was psychotic.
Now who’s being overly simplistic? And might I add, a little full of shit to boot. There’s a little Hitler inside everyone? I don’t think so.
You’re more than unreasonable. You are just plain wrong.
guyermo
John S. Don’t forget Mao. I’m pretty sure he was responsible for more deaths than Hitler and Stalin combined. Maybe not directly responsible, but his policies resulted in the starvation of millions.
Steve S
I’m just glad GW Bush isn’t as bad as Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, or Saddam hussein.
John S.
Guyermo-
Of course, let us not forget Mao – or Dear Leader.
Regardless, neither of these individuals attempted to take over the known world (thought they secretly may have aspired to), nor did they single out a group for genocide.
The majority of people whose lives were ruined by these men lived within the borders they controlled – as with Stalin. And though that does not make it OK, it didn’t warrant a world war.
ppGaz
“Better than Pol Pot”
Now THAT’S a campaign slogan!
Speaking of goofy spin …. Olbermann’s show tonight has some examples of stories that might be planted in Iraqi newspapers by our paid “journalists” …..
“Iraq Cities Lead Middle East in Electricity Conservation”
Made me spit my mac and cheese.
Cyrus
You can laugh, but I stand by what I said. (Including the “possibility” and “almost” bits that you glossed over.) When lynching in the American south was so open and unapologetic that they made postcards out of it, the difference between that and Nazism was one of degree. Yes, a big difference in degree, but only degree, not type. The difference between Nazism and the pogroms and persecution that had been a part of European history for centuries was also just one of degree and opportunity rather than type. Same kind of evil, just being practiced by mobs rather than governments.
Here and in other posts it seems to me, and correct me if I’m assuming too much of course because believe it or not I really do want to avoid it, that you’re saying the only kind of “war of aggression” that’s justified is one where the enemy is both imperialist and genocidal. Am I right? That’s the only pattern that seems to link your stated opinions on Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler. If I’m wrong, well, I apologize, but if I’m right, then that seems really arbitrary.
scs
What, that I’m open minded and think for myself? Thanks.
scs
Okay the question to me was this:
And I answered, ‘because of pacifism’ but then changed it to
First of all, we all know it is silly to explain “people”, as we all know that many people who oppose the war have different ideas about why. However, I tried to offer an opinion for discussion’s sake. I have spoken to many Democrats on here and in real life who believe warfare is only acceptable when we are in danger of an imminent attack. Note John S’s statement here :
I believe I have heard many Dem pundits complain about the lack of “imminent” threat from Iraq They are not impressed with warfare for any stated polical goals of turning Iraq into a Democracy (ppGaz). Hence, my conclusion that “you don’t believe in warfare to achieve future political goals’” is pretty much on the mark, as there are many anti-war protestors whom I have conversed with who believe warfare is mostly for national self-protection, not for politics.
Which brings me to this from Tim:
Umm, Tim, maybe you could have used a few less science classes and a few more philosophy classes in highschool. It is pretty hard to be dishonest stating what I did, given that a significant portion of anti-war people are not believers in using warfare for political goals. Obviously that is not EVERYONE’s reason, or the WHOLE reason, but I think it is a pretty big reason for many war protesters, and I was just trying to give my general opinion for Steve S’s vague question.
So Tim, once again, I am going to ask for an apology for basically calling me a liar for making a valid opinion statement. I wish you would just cut down on the slander a little more and save yourself the inevitable apologes that follow. What is this, my third one now? Hopefully John can talk some manners into you for next time and teach you how to run a blog. Because pretty soon, it might just be you and three leftie friends blogging on here.
Cyrus
“Dishonest” might have been too presumptive and inflammatory, but what you said is still incorrect. Equating a movement with a minority opinion within it is incorrect. And the “war only against an imminent threat” crowd really is a minority opinion in the anti-this-war crowd – at least, it certainly is now, and I believe it always was. You point to people complaining about the lack of an imminent threat, but most of those people were doing it to counter the administration’s claims that an imminent threat existed, and as one of many reasons why the war was a bad idea instead of as the overriding concern it would be to a pacifist.
Again, maybe I’m just arguing over details of language and it doesn’t matter. (Hell, I think we’re the only people left on this thread, so there’s no “probably” about it.) But while Tim might have been rude – wow, first time that’s ever happened on a blog – what you said was incorrect. Pacifism was not a driving force or even the majority opinion in the anti-this-war movement. If you don’t realize that, there’s no point in discussing the actual reasons.
Slander is spoken, libel is written. (Although you know, they might change that considering how some Internet communication is written with the norms and response speed of speech… but anyways.) And I believe they both require malicious intent, knowledge of falsehood, and harm done.
Don’t worry, I’m sure Darrell and Stormy will keep us honest for a while.
ppGaz
I’m not convinced that you are not just argumentative, and perhaps just a troll.
The wide-eyed gosh-gee-whillikers approach to everything is wearing a little thin.
The war, for example, is not a video game. Real people are getting their legs blown off.
ppGaz
Saying something that is incorrect, and can be unambiguously verified as being incorrect, is not just “making a valid opinion statement.”
A valid opinion is based on fact and can be correlated to fact. If I tell you that I think the earth is flat, would you take that to be a “valid opinion?” Because, it isn’t. The non-flatness of the earth is well established. My assertion that it’s flat has to be something other than valid opinion.
For example, comedy. Rhetorical device. Mental illness. Profound ignorance. Any number of things, but not a valid opinion.
scs
I don’t mean to be rude, but you guys are full of shit. We agree that the “imminent threat” philosophy is AT LEAST a minority position in the anti-war crowd. I would state that although I’m sure you and ppgaz are very astute people, none of us have ever taken a survey to determine what percent this philosophy applies to (if you have one, please feel free to inform me). Otherwise we have only your subjective opinion to go on that this applies only to a minority. My own personal hunch is, that the more anti-war someone is, the more likely their ideas correlate to pacifism. But that’s just me. Anyway, if the “imminent threat” idea is even a factor for even a minority of anti-war people, than my answer is not “incorrect”, it is a VALID response for SOME anti-war people.
First of all, like I said, to even think there is ONE reason for this is silly. Hence, I would think you all were smart enough to realize that my answer was not intended to definitively cover ALL anti-war people but instead was my subjective opinion based on my personal experiences and beliefs. And as I have proved here, the main people I have adressed this issue with on here have mostly emphasized to me their non-belief in using war in Iraq for any political goals (John S, Steve S, ppGaz.) So to repeat, this is valid because I am validly restating my experiences here. So what the fuck are you complaining about?
You know, I am getting really tired of explaining the basics of debate and philosphy to you guys. This blog is starting to be a waste of time. Feel free to start your own propaganda club.
John S.
I’m sorry if you see the unique threat of someone with the capability, determination and preliminary success to take over the world, impose a dictatorial fascist regime on that empire and wipe an entire race of people out as ‘arbitrary’.
I guess the expectations for engaging in war are a little higher for some of us.
John S.
scs-
Don’t blow a gasket. I really do not think that my views are mainstream, or in any way represent the majority of Democrats. You may use as much deductive reasoning as you want to surmise otherwise, but of course, it is just my opinion.
Cyrus
Well, yeah, call me a neocon if you want, but it does seem arbitrary. What if they’re imperialist and genocidal, but have a snowball’s chance in hell at achieving those aims? What if they’re non-discriminatory in their oppression and extermination? What if they’re happy with their existing borders, but already control a significant fraction of the world’s population and decide to do a little ethnic cleansing? What if they’re not genocidal, just imperialist and content with one of the most brutal and dehumanizing forms of slavery in history?
Do you think war against countries in all those situations, assuming of course it was really the last resort, would be morally unjustified? If so, I disagree. If justified wars of aggression exist, then I think they must include some if not all of the above situations.
John S.
Cyrus-
I wouldn’t stoop to branding you a neocon just to dismiss your position. It is childish and beneath me, so I don’t know where you get that notion from. Now to answer your questions:
Then why would war be justified? If I want to have 10 billion dollars but have no chance of actually getting it, are investment analysts going to flock to my aid to tell me how to invest my dream financial windfall? No.
Is this a serious question? It seems purely hypothetical, since no leader bent on power has ever been non-discriminatory in their oppression and killing. Ever. They always focus on SOMEONE to acheive their goals.
The only example of this I can think of are the “Empires” of the past. The Romans, the British and even the Americans. Few have the capacity to do what you have described, and the ones that did have been too powerful (and always styled as the forces of ‘good’) for anyone to do anything about it.
You mean like the Japanese? Refer to my views of WWII.
I know that you cannot understand my position, and therefore feel it necessary to probe every possible scenario to get a handle on my my mindset. I assure you, you are making things more difficult than they need to be. As a pacifist, I do not think war is justified or useful in 99.9% of the cases that have occured or could possibly occur. The only reason that WWII accounts for the .001% in my mind is because the threat to the ENTIRE world was real, and there was no other solution to dealing with Hitler and the Japanese.
Needless to say, I have not seen such a turn events since then.