regret
i bet a lot of those who voted for bush regret it...he must be the worse president the usa ever had
shareName calling is the best you can do. Bush has done some things right, some not so right...just like all presidents have. YOu must be new to the world, eh?
sharemaybe he has done some good things, but he's done a lot more bad things...like starting a war that has no meaning...and the economy got a lot worse since he became president
share"Starting a war that has no meaning." How old are you, anyway? 14?
And, when you grow up you will realize that the president really doesn't have the power to control the largest economy in the world.
But then you will probably still be blaming Bush for hurricanes.
The president certainly doesn't control the economy, but his policies have a big influence on it. Bush gave big tax cuts to huge corporations, with the reasoning that this would "trickle down" and ultimately help the average worker. But why didn't he raise the minimum wage to ensure that the poorest Americans benefit from this, rather than the corporate execs? Probably because those execs funded his campaign. At the same time he was cutting taxes for the rich, he was spending well over the government's budget. This increases the national debt, and devalues our currency (Canadian dollars are now worth more than American dollars). This, in turn, has a negative effect on trade with other countries, and so on.
As for starting "a war without meaning", I think it would be more accurate to say it was unjustified. He should have finished the job in Afghanistan instead of diverting our military resources to his personal vendetta against Saddam, who had nothing to do with 9/11.
Ok, I'm done ranting now...
--Ariston
You do not have the right to not be offended.
"and the economy got a lot worse since he became president"
When he was elected, GDP was under $10 trillion. Today? It is over $14 trillion. That's more than 40% growth.
Care to clarify how things have gotten worse???
How about the fact that our national debt more than doubled and your average personal obligation to the debt went up almost $20,000. If you limit that to the average US job holder it is well over $30,000.
Or the fact that the Dow is lower now than it was 8 years ago and that the NASDAQ is down over 40% from when he took over.
The dollar has weakened to its lowest point since WW1.
The world view of the US has not been worse in my lifetime.
We started a war for the first time in the nation's history. A war in which our involvement is proving to be based upon lies and half-truths.
Our freedoms are being stripped at an alarming rate.
Drastic rise in unemployment.
Care to clarify anything that has gotten better????
"We started a war for the first time in the nation's history."
Not quite. The United States has a rich history of invading and subverting sovereign nations.
Maybe his first term but his second term his favorite thing to do was veto everything.
An informal survey of 109 academic historians performed by the History News Network finds 61% consider his presidency the worst in the nation's history, and 98.2% consider his presidency as a failure. That's not equivalent to "some things right, some not so right."
share"An informal survey of 109 academic historians performed by the History News Network finds 61% consider his presidency the worst in the nation's history, and 98.2% consider his presidency as a failure. That's not equivalent to "some things right, some not so right."
No, that's equivalent to some very poorly informed historians disguising their partisan political opinions as scholarship and speaks very poorly of the "History News Network." Considering academia is so heavily leftwing, the "survey" is meaningless--let's ask DEA agents how they feel about legalizing weed.
I guess history must have begun after Jimmy Carter to those punks.
No, that's equivalent to some very poorly informed historians disguising their partisan political opinions as scholarship and speaks very poorly of the "History News Network." Considering academia is so heavily leftwing, the "survey" is meaningless--let's ask DEA agents how they feel about legalizing weed.Ah, yes...the biased academia argument. It never ceases to amaze me that right wingers think pointing out that the smartest people in the country lean to the left is some kind of put down. J.S. Mill said it best when he said "While it is not true that most Conservatives are stupid, it is true that most stupid people are Conservative"
If your argument was valid, it would mean that before this Bush became President, they considered Bush I to be the worst, then Reagan before him, and on backwards through the right-wing Presidents. However, that is clearly not the case. Before Bush, names like Harding, Grant and Jackson were bandied about as the worst commander in chief the nation had ever had. But it looks like Shrub has surpassed them all on the suck-o-meter. And really...I think even people who like him would be hard pressed to come up with some way to defend him. share
"Ah, yes...the biased academia argument. It never ceases to amaze me that right wingers think pointing out that the smartest people in the country lean to the left is some kind of put down. J.S. Mill said it best when he said "While it is not true that most Conservatives are stupid, it is true that most stupid people are Conservative"
Prozac god crawls out from under a rock--look, it's trying to think!
The "smartest people in the country" lean left? Dude, I've been through college and graduate school, and some of the PhDs I had didn't have the common sense to come in out of the rain or the stones to make it in the business world, and prefer the comfort of being surrounded by others of their ilk and preaching simple minded contrarianism to skulls full of mush like you.
"And really...I think even people who like him would be hard pressed to come up with some way to defend him."
Why would I BOTHER "defending" Bush to you?
As if YOU have some insight, intelligence or wisdom. All you have is a snarky attitude, and if you think we'd have been better off under AlGore or John F'n Kerry giving the UN veto power over how we define and defend the strategic interests of this nation, you're not thinking at all. Sure PG, we'd all be better off if only we'd left Saddam & Sons in charge in Iraq, free to continue hosting conventions of Islamic terror orgs as reported by the LA Times & Newsweek, encourage further acts of terror in state run media as on the 2nd anniversary of 9/11, write $25K checks to the survivors of Palestinian suicide bombers, and offer asylum to OBL as reported by CNN, and we'd be so much better off if MORE of our income were being confiscated by government.
Aw....sounds like widdle baby neo-con got his feewings hurt! I love what PUSSIES you right-wingers are! You all talk about guts and personal responsibility, but as soon as someone stands up to you, you piss your pants, fill your britches with sh*t, and whine, whine, whine.
Prozac god crawls out from under a rock--look, it's trying to think!Well, you've certainly shown your moral superiority here: answer an insult with an insult.
The "smartest people in the country" lean left? Dude, I've been through college and graduate school, and some of the PhDs I had didn't have the common sense to come in out of the rain or the stones to make it in the business world, and prefer the comfort of being surrounded by others of their ilk and preaching simple minded contrarianism to skulls full of mush like you.Yeah, I hear that one a lot too...the old "They have book learnin' but no common sense!" argument. Sure. These arguments are so old, they are actually collecting pensions. Its just a way for you to try and feel better about yourself for knowing someone smarter than you doesn't agree with you. I've known some very intelligent conservatives, and I've not been ashamed to say they were vastly more intelligent than me. I just concluded that we looked at things differently, I didn't have to vaunt up my ego by assuming that I possessed some ethereal, greater knowledge of "common" issues to make myself feel better. But then again, I'm not a simpering, cowardly piece of vermin filth like you.
Why would I BOTHER "defending" Bush to you?Don't know. But if you did it would just prove what I already suspect: that you are a traitor to America. Anyone who defends Bush as a President is a traitor to America, just like him...and should therefore be subject to the same punishment all traitors deserve.
All you have is a snarky attitude, and if you think we'd have been better off under AlGore or John F'n Kerry giving the UN veto power over how we define and defend the strategic interests of this nation, you're not thinking at all. Sure PG, we'd all be better off if only we'd left Saddam & Sons in charge in Iraq, free to continue hosting conventions of Islamic terror orgs as reported by the LA Times & Newsweek, encourage further acts of terror in state run media as on the 2nd anniversary of 9/11, write $25K checks to the survivors of Palestinian suicide bombers, and offer asylum to OBL as reported by CNN, and we'd be so much better off if MORE of our income were being confiscated by government.There we go...typical right-wing mentality: assuming that if I agree with one or two things that someone says, I must agree with EVERYTHING someone says. Listen, just because you right-wingers have to turn yourself into thoughtless drones for whatever conservative candidate your party sh*ts out of the Primaries doesn't mean lefties have to. In truth, I think Al Gore or John Kerry WOULD have been better Presidents than Bush, but they still would have been lousy. Just because I think someone is the lesser of two evils, doesn't mean I don't still think they are evil. There are a LOT of issues I disagreed with Gore and Kerry about, but just slightly less than I disagree with Bush about. You righties can't seem to wrap your head around that. It never ceases to amaze me how you all STILL bring up Bill CLinton, like we think he was Jesus or something. I HATED BILL CLINTON! I just hate him slightly less than I hate Bush.
And you know what? Saddam was a bastard! But it wasn't America's place to take him out. We were still fighting an important war in Afganistan, and that war has been neglected because of this bullsh*t in Iraq.
Anyone who supports Bush as President is a traitor to America. Anyone who supports the war in Iraq hates America because it is doing nothing but hurting us. Since you do both, I can only conclude that you are a traitor to my country, which you also hate. Please leave it and go somewhere else. I don't want your kind polluting this nation that I love with your venomous filth.
PS AND STOP COMPARING ME TO DEMOCRATS! I'm not a Democrat either. share
"Aw....sounds like widdle baby neo-con got his feewings hurt! I love what PUSSIES you right-wingers are! You all talk about guts and personal responsibility, but as soon as someone stands up to you, you piss your pants, fill your britches with sh*t, and whine, whine, whine."
Weak. What are you, in the seventh grade? And you call what you wrote "standing up"? If anybody has soiled their diapers, it's you, kid.
"Listen, just because you right-wingers have to turn yourself into thoughtless drones for whatever conservative candidate your party sh*ts out of the Primaries doesn't mean lefties have to.
In truth, I think Al Gore or John Kerry WOULD have been better Presidents than Bush, but they still would have been lousy."
Laughable--based on WHAT exactly?
"Anyone who defends Bush as a President is a traitor to America, just like him...and should therefore be subject to the same punishment all traitors deserve."
You gonna bark all day little doggie?
"Yeah, I hear that one a lot too...the old "They have book learnin' but no common sense!" argument. Sure. These arguments are so old, they are actually collecting pensions. Its just a way for you to try and feel better about yourself for knowing someone smarter than you doesn't agree with you. I've known some very intelligent conservatives, and I've not been ashamed to say they were vastly more intelligent than me. I just concluded that we looked at things differently, I didn't have to vaunt up my ego by assuming that I possessed some ethereal, greater knowledge of "common" issues to make myself feel better. But then again, I'm not a simpering, cowardly piece of vermin filth like you."
You've been through college and graduate school too, right? You've been subjected to leftard platitudes by a doddering 60s reject with dandruff fogging his glasses who was supposed to be teaching you British Literature 1716-1780, right? You've been lectured on the "unfairness" of our tax laws by a doofus who was supposed to be teaching Mass Communications Law who brags about all the times he was FIRED, right? You've listened to a snide, authoritarian feminist insult the US military the way John F'n Kerry did while she was SUPPOSED to be teaching Mass Media Ethics? Don't tell me these people were "smarter" than I was when I had to suffer through their classes and seminars. I make more money than any of them now--I made it in the real world they're hiding from in academia, and I'm not a bitter, didactic popinjay whose salary is siphoned from taxpater's pockets and who drones on to a captive audience because nobody else will listen to them.
"Anyone who supports Bush as President is a traitor to America. Anyone who supports the war in Iraq hates America because it is doing nothing but hurting us. Since you do both, I can only conclude that you are a traitor to my country, which you also hate. Please leave it and go somewhere else. I don't want your kind polluting this nation that I love with your venomous filth."
Childish and beneath contempt, along with the rest of your "post."
I'm not going anywhere, PG. I like the USA just fine.
Deal with it.
Weak. What are you, in the seventh grade? And you call what you wrote "standing up"? If anybody has soiled their diapers, it's you, kid.He typed, choking back tears and trying to remind himself that at least his mother thinks he is a good person. Christ, you are such a whining little hooker-baby!
Laughable--based on WHAT exactly?I have no need to defend my beliefs from the likes of you or anyone else.
You gonna bark all day little doggie?Unfortunately, we are talking on an internet forum so, I am only able to assail you with written word. Were we speaking face to face, I could do some actual damage but alas, we are not. So, your treason goes unpunished yet another day.
You've been through college and graduate school too, right?Yes.
You've been subjected to leftard platitudes by a doddering 60s reject with dandruff fogging his glasses who was supposed to be teaching you British Literature 1716-1780, right? You've been lectured on the "unfairness" of our tax laws by a doofus who was supposed to be teaching Mass Communications Law who brags about all the times he was FIRED, right? You've listened to a snide, authoritarian feminist insult the US military the way John F'n Kerry did while she was SUPPOSED to be teaching Mass Media Ethics? Don't tell me these people were "smarter" than I was when I had to suffer through their classes and seminars. I make more money than any of them now--I made it in the real world they're hiding from in academia, and I'm not a bitter, didactic popinjay whose salary is siphoned from taxpater's pockets and who drones on to a captive audience because nobody else will listen to them.lol...I get it. You are bitter because you got beaten up on by liberals. Aw....have a cookie and let me warm up your ba-ba of milk, your sh*t-coated son-of-a-whore!
I've actually had about as many right-wing professors as I've had left wing. I went to college in a VERY conservative area of the country. I was actually further left than most of my professors, and I'm probably further left than most of the ones you've had. So, your complaints (like your very life) mean NOTHING to me at all. Nothing.
Then why did you bother replying to it?
Childish and beneath contempt, along with the rest of your "post.
I'm not going anywhere, PG. I like the USA just fine.Then when the war comes, this is where you will make your grave. share
Deal with it.
"Unfortunately, we are talking on an internet forum so, I am only able to assail you with written word. Were we speaking face to face, I could do some actual damage but alas, we are not. So, your treason goes unpunished yet another day."
"Assail" me? You owe me for one monitor cleaning for all the coffee I just spewed on it when I read that. Talking sh*t on the web is not the behavior of somene who poses an actual threat, and if you ever did, I would act decisively to eliminate that threat. You could "do actual damage"? So, in real life, you pick FIGHTS with everybody who DARES disagree with you, right? In what delusional scenario are YOU appointed to try, convict and punish ANYBDOY for what YOU define as "treason." Disagreeing with YOU is "treason"? How Stalinist of you.
"I have no need to defend my beliefs from the likes of you or anyone else."
Hey, how 'bout that! We have something in common! Sure, your word is law, right? I bet you got back a lot of papers with low grades and "Be specific, give examples" written in red in the margins. If you've really been through college and graduate school, you never learned to formulate an argument.
"You are bitter because you got beaten up on by liberals."
No, go back and read the post--THEY were the bitter ones, and they didn't "beat up" on me, they bored the sh*t out of me for a semester each with their snarky leftard hot air rather than TEACH THE CURRICULUM for the classes I PAID FOR. Where do you get the idea that impotent academic petty authority figures "beat up" on students whose time and money they are wasting by preaching at them with trite socialist drivel? I left those LOSERS behind when I got my degrees--they're still there, still whining and still neglecting their teaching duties I'm sure.
"I was actually further left than most of my professors, and I'm probably further left than most of the ones you've had. So, your complaints (like your very life) mean NOTHING to me at all. Nothing."
And you BRAG about that? What "complaints" have you heard from me? Criticism about having my time wasted rather than being taught curriculum has nothing to do with you, a strident web crank who talks like a charicature of an SDS radical from 40 years ago. Do you wear a tattered Che! T-shirt and pump your fist in the air every time you hear a Marxist slogan?
"Then when the war comes, this is where you will make your grave."
I get it--political power comes from the barrel of a gun, right?
You vastly overestimate your chances, intellect and sense of reality. I don't know how much Prozac you're prescribed, but it's not enough.
You hate Democrats, Republicans more and you describe yourself as farther to the left than your most leftist Prof, and you love America enough to want to turn it into a worker's paradise with YOU in charge.
I'm GLAD you hate me and that I've gotten you so rattled you're typing veiled threats--easier than supporting your arguments with facts, right?
My god...were you built in a factory or something? Its like every single right winger I encounter assumes that if you are on the left, you are a Marxist. Do a little research, c*cksocket! Marxism isn't the dominant ideology of the left, that is just what right wingers want the masses to think. Western social democracy and liberal socialism is a radical departure from Marxism, so much so that when it emerged at the turn of the last century, Orthodox Marxists were willing to align themselves with fascists and totalitarians to put it down.
No, I do not like Che Guvera. No, I'm not a Stalinist. And I'm no SDC hippie or Marxist. You assume these things because you are an idiot, and because you have been TOLD that radical leftists are all like that.
As to the barrel of a gun comment, I believe that some day people like you are going to get fed up with all the liberals, leftists, homosexuals, vegetarians, and anyone else you think doesn't deserve to be here and start trying to round them up and exterminate them. It will start small, random acts of violence (like this http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/28/church.shooting/index.html) but it will slowly baloon into your cronies and thugs taking over the Justice department with political appointees (that sounds familiar too...). And when that day comes, I won't be setting on the couch waiting for them naked like that lesbian in V for Vendetta. I'm not one of these "give peace a chance", anti-gun liberals that the media likes to pretend we all are. I'm a heavily armed, life-long NRA members with a HUGE cache of very deadly things that go bang. And on THAT day, I'm going to send so many right wing thugs to hell that the Republicans will be better off just holding their Convention there.
I'm GLAD you hate me and that I've gotten you so rattled you're typing veiled threatsYou don't have me rattled, I just recognize people like you for the threat you are. You are the beginning of the next Holocaust. And I didn't make a veiled threat. I made a BLATANT threat. A veiled threat is when the threat is hidden or disguised as something else. I did not such thing. I made it very clear that someday, someone like me is going to kill someone like you. Nothing veiled at all.
And I don't know that I hate you, I barely know you. Outside of this message board, we might get along famously. I have a few right wing friends. But, they are all aware that if/when the war comes, I'll kill them first: just to show the rest of the Right that I'm not *beep* around.
easier than supporting your arguments with facts, right?As I said before, I have no interest in debating with you. It is a waste of time. I just want to make sure that you know where we stand, and that you know that not all of us on the left are going to greet you with flowers and tolerance when you try to haul us off to internment camps under the pretext of us being traitors.
share
"I'm a heavily armed, life-long NRA members with a HUGE cache of very deadly things that go bang."
Hey--how 'bout that! That's TWO things we have in common!
"And I didn't make a veiled threat. I made a BLATANT threat. A veiled threat is when the threat is hidden or disguised as something else. I did not such thing. I made it very clear that someday, someone like me is going to kill someone like you. Nothing veiled at all."
"I believe that some day people like you are going to get fed up with all the liberals, leftists, homosexuals, vegetarians, and anyone else you think doesn't deserve to be here and start trying to round them up and exterminate them. It will start small, random acts of violence (like this http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/28/church.shooting/index.html) but it will slowly baloon into your cronies and thugs taking over the Justice department with political appointees (that sounds familiar too...). And when that day comes, I won't be setting on the couch waiting for them naked like that lesbian in V for Vendetta. I'm not one of these "give peace a chance", anti-gun liberals that the media likes to pretend we all are."
"I have a few right wing friends. But, they are all aware that if/when the war comes, I'll kill them first: just to show the rest of the Right that I'm not *beep* around."
The above statements would get your CCW permit revoked or application rejected, and would also serve as strong evidence in a Baker Act hearing for your involuntary commitment to a mental hospital. You're delusional, paranoid and trumpet that you are a danger to others.
You assume I would allow "someone like you" to kill me. You're wrong.
Your "friends" listen to you boast you'll "kill them first if/when the war comes just to show the rest of the Right that you're not *beep* around"?
Man, I bet you're fun at parties!
V for Vendetta was a movie, not real life, just like Recount's portrayal of the players in the 2000 election that Gore lost.
"As I said before, I have no interest in debating with you. It is a waste of time. I just want to make sure that you know where we stand, and that you know that not all of us on the left are going to greet you with flowers and tolerance when you try to haul us off to internment camps under the pretext of us being traitors."
No, it's a LOT of fun for ME, and your paranoia is manifest for all to see. You may yet be "hauled off," but it won't be by "cronies of the right," it will be by men in white lab coats with a court order after a Baker Act hearing. The bad news: You can't take your guns with you, and you probably won't get them back. The good news: Nurse Ratched will see that you get your Prozac, orally or otherwise.
You know so little about so much.
The above statements would get your CCW permit revoked or application rejected, and would also serve as strong evidence in a Baker Act hearing for your involuntary commitment to a mental hospital.I guess you think that if a woman states "If a man tries to rape me, I will shoot him", she is "trumpeting that she is a danger to others" and should have her CCW revoked? If a father says that he will defend with lethal force his children and home, he is a danger to others and should have his Constitutional right to own a firearm revoked? Maybe you'd be more at home with the Brady Campaign rather than the NRA?
I'm not advocating pro-active violence, I'm stating that if it comes to me, I will defend myself against it. I'm only a danger to those that are violent towards me.
History is littered with examples of political and social "purges" and "cleansing", some of which are going on right now in other parts of the world. My point is this: when and if it comes here and I become a target of it, I will not go quietly into the night. I would imagine you wouldn't either.
It is my hope that the knowledge that I am armed and willing to use my armaments will discourage right wingers (those I consider my friends, as well as those I do not) from following a mass movement to purge people like me from society, if that time ever comes. The knowledge that I will not hesitate to take a life, even that of a friend, if they threaten my life and liberty, should keep them in check. I would expect that were a bunch of violent left wingers to get it in their heads to round up people like YOU, you'd gun them down without remorse. And good for you. Hopefully, people on both sides of the political spectrum who have weaker wills and less tolerant spirits will be discouraged by the knowledge that their intended quarry is armed. As a fellow gun-rights advocate, you are likely aware that the first step of any successful purge is to disarm the targets.
V for Vendetta was a movie, not real life,It is an example, you idiot. Want real life? Crack open a history book.
The bad news: You can't take your guns with you, and you probably won't get them backYour true colors have shown. Disarm those whose political ideology differs from your own when they brazenly declare that they will NOT allow themselves to become victims. It will make it easier for the purges.
We'll see how that goes. As a greater man than me once said, you can have them "when you pry them from my cold dead"...well, you get the idea. share
"And I didn't make a veiled threat. I made a BLATANT threat. A veiled threat is when the threat is hidden or disguised as something else. I did not such thing. I made it very clear that someday, someone like me is going to kill someone like you. Nothing veiled at all."
"I believe that some day people like you are going to get fed up with all the liberals, leftists, homosexuals, vegetarians, and anyone else you think doesn't deserve to be here and start trying to round them up and exterminate them. It will start small, random acts of violence (like this http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/28/church.shooting/index.html) but it will slowly baloon into your cronies and thugs taking over the Justice department with political appointees (that sounds familiar too...). And when that day comes, I won't be setting on the couch waiting for them naked like that lesbian in V for Vendetta. I'm not one of these "give peace a chance", anti-gun liberals that the media likes to pretend we all are."
"I have a few right wing friends. But, they are all aware that if/when the war comes, I'll kill them first: just to show the rest of the Right that I'm not *beep* around."
Your own words indicate very clearly that you're delusional, paranoid and trumpet that you are a danger to others, and you clarified you were making a BLATANT threat. Who ever said you had no right to defend yourself? Who issued threats? Oh, right--YOU DID.
Own your words. People have been Baker Acted for saying/writing far less incendiary things than you wrote and are now downplaying. Would you ever sign your real name to those things in a public forum such as a letter to the editor of a newspaper? Or ANY public forum? No, you wouldn't. You would DENY you wrote those things if you got the attention of any legal authority.
"It is my hope that the knowledge that I am armed and willing to use my armaments will discourage right wingers (those I consider my friends, as well as those I do not) from following a mass movement to purge people like me from society, if that time ever comes."
A "mass movement" to purge people who talk sh*t on the web from society? No, it won't happen, but on the web you can tell us all how tough you are and what you'd do IF that time ever comes, which it won't.
Talk sh*t on the web all you want--it's your First Amendment right and nobody in real life is trying to take it from you.
But BLATANT threats such as you've made WILL get you Baker Acted if you behave in real life the way you do on the web.
I can't attest to how well informed these historians are, although I presume that, on average, they are more informed than the average American. If you have an issue with the History News Network you may write a letter to either George Mason University (a veritable redoubt of Leftist thought)or its Center for History and New Media.
We could also consider the Siena College polls, the most recent being 2006. In 2006 the Siena Research Institute polled 744 academic historians. The results are striking: 2% considered his presidency great, 5% near great, 11% average, 24% below average, and 58% a failure. What's more, 67% replied "no" to the question, "In your judgment, do you think [President Bush] has a realistic chance of improving his rating?" Only 23% replied "yes." In the interests of disclosure I should mention that Siena College refers to itself as a "liberal arts college."
Perhaps, of course, all of this is just a crude argument from authority. I won't dispute this, but if you're so enamoured of the Bush presidency, perhaps you should outline what aspects of it you consider positive, what aspects you consider to be negative, and how you believe he fares in comparison with previous presidencies.
I actually wouldn't mind knowing what a meaningful sample of DEA agents feels about legalizing weed.
"Perhaps, of course, all of this is just a crude argument from authority. I won't dispute this, but if you're so enamoured of the Bush presidency, perhaps you should outline what aspects of it you consider positive, what aspects you consider to be negative, and how you believe he fares in comparison with previous presidencies."
That's exactly what it is, and I've never been "enamored of the Bush presidency," I've been very thankful that AlGore and John F'n Kerry were not president. Islamic terror orgs have been at war with us for decades, and despite the increasingly bold attacks during the 1990s, only since 9/11 have we been at war with them. AlGore and John F'n Kerry would ask permission of the UN to prosecute this war and would have left Saddam in charge. For all Bush's faults (misjudging Vlad the Impaler Putin, but Gore or Kerry would have been weaker), positive aspects of his presidency include taking the fight to our enemies rather than sitting here waiting for them to hit us again, lowering the tax bills of those who produce (and in so doing, increase tax revenue) and keeping unemployment low--even now, it's 5.7%, one tenth of a point more than the 5.6% the news media gushed about when Bubbah was running for re-election in 1996.
As for how he fares in comparison to previous presidents, that's something history will determine--Lincoln's & Truman's contemporaries had little praise for the tough decisions they made that cost the country blood & treasure, but preserving the Union and the Berlin Airlift and keeping South Korea free were the right decisions to make even if they cost popularity at the time. If Iraq in 60 years is a Middle Eastern Germany or Japan, a free, prosperous member of the family of nations, Bush will look much better then.
"I actually wouldn't mind knowing what a meaningful sample of DEA agents feels about legalizing weed."
Me too, but I'd be very surprised if they were anything but hard core true believers--gateway drug, yadda yadda yadda. I actually did meet one socially some years ago and he was Joe Friday all the way. A mutual friend related how he tried the "but you like your Jack Daniels and cigars" argument on him only to be given a stern lecture complete with statistics about how many criminals are addicts and how many of them started with weed.
I've been very thankful that AlGore and John F'n Kerry were not president. Islamic terror orgs have been at war with us for decades, and despite the increasingly bold attacks during the 1990s, only since 9/11 have we been at war with them.
I don't know what terror organizations you're referring to, but if you mean al-Qaeda then you're not referring to an organization. Al-Qaeda is a network of networks, basically a number of interconnected (very loosely) people with generally shared sympathies. How do you go to war with such an entity? As it is, very poorly. All of this, of course, is well known among Defense Department analysts. There is plenty of scholarship on this matter, feel free to look it up.
What's more, the threat from terrorism is negligible. If the current administration actually cared about the interests of Americans, it would work to stop what actually does threaten Americans such as high levels of smog or the country's woefully inefficient health care system. To be fair, however, I don't expect a Democratic president would fare any better in this regard. Such measures (universal health care in particular) are wholly unacceptable in such a rigid doctrinal system.
AlGore and John F'n Kerry would ask permission of the UN to prosecute this war and would have left Saddam in charge.
Either the United States respects international law and the international consensus on what constitutes a lawful use of force, or it doesn't. The Bush presidency has adopted the policy of the Clinton administration, which itself is very much a re-formulation of the foreign policy of the Kennedy administration: the United States has the right to undertake unilateral use of force when it is in its perceived interests to do so. Either you think that's reasonable, or you don't. However, look for any competently conducted survey of American foreign policy attitudes and you will find that the American public overwhelmingly supports multilateral initiatives, and overwhelmingly disapproves of unilateral use of force in contravention of international law. So, either you believe a president should act in accordance with the wishes of the American public, or you do not. If the latter, you shouldn't be particularly surprised to find that that president isn't popular (regarded as the worst in American history, in this case).
I believe force can be justified in certain circumstances, but that it requires a heavy burden of proof. If Iraq truly represented an imminent threat to the safety of the United States, which it did not, then that case should have been properly made. Proof was lacking, so the justification was changed to freeing the Iraqi people. That the administration thought it could achieve its principal war aims, or what it claimed were its principal war aims, without international backing was, in my estimation, pure folly. Even if we assume that it was possible, it clearly did not happen. Five years later and scientific best practice puts the number of excess Iraqi casualties beyond one million. Either you believe that's reasonable, or you don't.
Any debate about how ineptly the war was conducted is, for me, entirely irrelevant. The United States committed an act of aggression by invading a sovereign nation, aggression being the supreme crime against humanity. All those responsible should be tried for war crimes.
... lowering the tax bills of those who produce (and in so doing, increase tax revenue) and keeping unemployment low--even now, it's 5.7%, one tenth of a point more than the 5.6% the news media gushed about when Bubbah was running for re-election in 1996.
Again, we sharply disagree. Those who produce are the workers while those who saw the greatest gains from lowering taxes were those who coordinate labour. I'd love to see your source for the "increase [in] tax revenue" remark (a source which can reasonably attribute revenue increase to Bush's "lowering the tax bills of those who produce"). The unemployment figures mean little. The relevance of all this is debatable; what non-trivial difference do you actually believe exists between Democrats and Republicans on economic issues?
If Iraq in 60 years is a Middle Eastern Germany or Japan, a free, prosperous member of the family of nations, Bush will look much better then.
This shouldn't be relevant. Simply look to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. By various metrics Afghanistan was made better off post-invasion. Nevertheless, the United States quite rightly demanded that the Soviets leave Afghanistan immediately. Not in ten years, or twenty years, or whatever. Nor was the United States persuaded by Soviet claims that were they to abruptly pull out of Afghanistan the country would face collapse (which it did). Do we now laud Soviet imperialism for improving the lives of Afghanis (for a time) or Chechans?
share
"Those who produce are the workers while those who saw the greatest gains from lowering taxes were those who coordinate labour. I'd love to see your source for the "increase [in] tax revenue" remark (a source which can reasonably attribute revenue increase to Bush's "lowering the tax bills of those who produce"). The unemployment figures mean little. The relevance of all this is debatable; what non-trivial difference do you actually believe exists between Democrats and Republicans on economic issues?"
The Fiscal Year to Date deficit ($80 billion) is down 33 percent ($39 billion) compared to the same period last year. The President's tax relief has stimulated strong economic growth. This strong growth has contributed to record-level receipts and the creation of more than 7.2 million jobs since August 2003. October to December receipts for FY 07 are at $574 billion, running 8 percent ($43 billion) higher compared to the same period for FY 06.
December brought record-level monthly tax receipts ($260 billion) and a record-level surplus ($45 billion) for the month. The monthly surplus was up 306 percent ($34 billion) compared to December 2005 ($11 billion).
December 15 brought the largest ever single day corporate tax receipts ($73 billion). This broke the previous record set in September 2006 ($72 billion).
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/hp224.htm
Those who "cooridinate labour" have the heaviest tax burden, while wage earners who pay less in taxes to begin with saw less tax releif. Every job I've ever had was offered to me by somebody who "coordianted labour" and made more money than I did, and no job I've ever had was offered to me a "worker." I do not buy into Marxist class envy, and in order to earn more money for myself, I started my own small business. I did not gripe about the larger salraies of my former bosses and expect Democrats to punish them through heavier taxation.
Democrats think the 45 cents of every dollar I earn that is confiscated by local, state & federal taxes is not enough; Republicans think it's too much.
"Either the United States respects international law and the international consensus on what constitutes a lawful use of force, or it doesn't."
Iraq was in violation of how many UN resolutions before OIF? The coalition that ivaded Iraq did so to enforce the terms of UN Resolution 1441, and did not act alone or arbitrarily. The United States should NEVER give ANY interanational body or other nation veto power over what its strategic interests are or what steps should be taken to pursue and defend them, which is exactly what John F'n Kerry's "global test" would do.
The Ilsamic terror orgs I referred to were those written of by Mark Fineman of the Los Angeles Times and Newsweek's Christopher Dickey cited here:
Throughout the 1990s, the Iraqi regime hosted Popular Islamic Conferences in Baghdad, gatherings modeled after conferences Turabi hosted in Khartoum. Mark Fineman, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, attended one of the conferences and filed a story about his experience on January 26, 1993. "There are delegates from the most committed Islamic organizations on Earth," he wrote. "Afghan mujahedeen (holy warriors), Palestinian militants, Sudanese fundamentalists, the Islamic Brotherhood and Pakistan's Party of Islam." Newsweek's Christopher Dickey attended the same conference and wrote about it in 2002. "Islamic radicals from all over the Middle East, Africa, and Asia converged on Baghdad," he wrote, "to show their solidarity with Iraq in the face of American aggression. . . . Every time I hear diplomats and politicians, whether in Washington or the capitals of Europe, declare that Saddam Hussein is a 'secular Baathist ideologue' who has nothing to do with Islamists or terrorist calls to jihad, I think of that afternoon and I wonder what they're talking about. If that was not a fledgling Qaeda itself at the Rashid convention, it sure was Saddam's version of it."
Iraqi leaders frequently touted their Islamist credentials. "We are blessed in this country for having the Islamic holy warrior Saddam Hussein as a leader, who is guiding the country in a religious holy war against the infidels and nonbelievers," said Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, one of Saddam's top deputies, in an address to the terrorist confab. On August 27, 1998, 20 days after al Qaeda attacked the U.S. embassies in Africa, Babel, the government newspaper run by Saddam's son Uday Hussein, published an editorial proclaiming Osama bin Laden "an Arab and Islamic hero."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/710g oolj.asp
"If Iraq in 60 years is a Middle Eastern Germany or Japan, a free, prosperous member of the family of nations, Bush will look much better then.
This shouldn't be relevant. Simply look to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. By various metrics Afghanistan was made better off post-invasion. Nevertheless, the United States quite rightly demanded that the Soviets leave Afghanistan immediately."
Of COURSE this should be relevant; Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were threats to the entire world who made no secret of it and acted to seize and control other nations and their natural resources. Iraq under Saddam & Sons were also threats to the region, and the rest of the world by extension because of Iraq's support for Islamic terror and potentially rearm. Saddam told FBI interrogater George Piro what his intentions were as reported by CBS News on 60 Minutes:
In fact, Piro says Saddam intended to produce weapons of mass destruction again, some day. "The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there," Piro says.
"And that was his intention?" Pelley asks.
"Yes," Piro says.
"What weapons of mass destruction did he intend to pursue again once he had the opportunity?" Pelley asks.
"He wanted to pursue all of WMD. So he wanted to reconstitute his entire WMD program," says Piro.
"Chemical, biological, even nuclear," Pelley asks.
"Yes," Piro says.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml
"Simply look to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. By various metrics Afghanistan was made better off post-invasion."
You're comparing the behavior of the Soviet military in Afghanistan to the US military in Iraq? Not even CLOSE--the Soviets booby trapped TOYS and sprayed "liquid fire" over large areas to deny territory to the Mujahideen. This looked like blobs of tar on the ground that would burst into flame when stepped by a Muj or any Afghan. The Soviets took NO steps to minimize civilian casualties or to establish an elected Afghan government, nor did the USSR consult the UN before it invaded.
"If Iraq truly represented an imminent threat to the safety of the United States, which it did not, then that case should have been properly made. Proof was lacking, so the justification was changed to freeing the Iraqi people. That the administration thought it could achieve its principal war aims, or what it claimed were its principal war aims, without international backing was, in my estimation, pure folly. Even if we assume that it was possible, it clearly did not happen. Five years later and scientific best practice puts the number of excess Iraqi casualties beyond one million. Either you believe that's reasonable, or you don't."
You're preteding 20/20 hindsight equals "I told you so," and no, I don't believe the one million Iraqi casualty figure. I believe a figure of under 100,000 is far more accurate as quoted by Iraq Body Count, whose data is drawn from cross-checked media reports, hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures to produce a credible record of known deaths and incidents:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Saddam & Sons beat that by a large margin without the US military being involved.
share
You're preteding 20/20 hindsight equals "I told you so," and no, I don't believe the one million Iraqi casualty figure. I believe a figure of under 100,000 is far more accurate as quoted by Iraq Body Count, whose data is drawn from cross-checked media reports, hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures to produce a credible record of known deaths and incidents:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Saddam & Sons beat that by a large margin without the US military being involved.
Clearly you're not a statistician. For future reference, data is plural.
The Fiscal Year to Date deficit ($80 billion) is down 33 percent ($39 billion) compared to the same period last year. The President's tax relief has stimulated strong economic growth. This strong growth has contributed to record-level receipts and the creation of more than 7.2 million jobs since August 2003. October to December receipts for FY 07 are at $574 billion, running 8 percent ($43 billion) higher compared to the same period for FY 06.
December brought record-level monthly tax receipts ($260 billion) and a record-level surplus ($45 billion) for the month. The monthly surplus was up 306 percent ($34 billion) compared to December 2005 ($11 billion).
December 15 brought the largest ever single day corporate tax receipts ($73 billion). This broke the previous record set in September 2006 ($72 billion).
This is not an attributional study. Although they do freely attribute.
As for the rest of your post, I won't bother to reply. It is all shameful apologetics. share
"Clearly you're not a statistician. For future reference, data is plural."
It's abundantly clear your response to Iraq Body Count's figures is a pedantic correction of subject-verb agreement re data rather than citing the source of your one million figure.
"This is not an attributional study. Although they do freely attribute."
No, it's not--it's a press release from the US Treasury--the figures are accurate or they are not, and you've refuted none of them.
"As for the rest of your post, I won't bother to reply. It is all shameful apologetics."
No sir. You asked what Islamic terror orgs were active in Iraq and you were told.
"Those who "cooridinate labour" have the heaviest tax burden, while wage earners who pay less in taxes to begin with saw less tax releif. Every job I've ever had was offered to me by somebody who "coordianted labour" and made more money than I did, and no job I've ever had was offered to me a "worker."
The statement above is true and factual. Nothing in it was "shameful apologetics."
You asked what "non-trivial" difference exists between Democrats and Republicans on economic issues, and you were told "Democrats think the 45 cents of every dollar I earn that is confiscated by local, state & federal taxes is not enough; Republicans think it's too much."
The statements above are true and factual. Nothing in it was "shameful apologetics."
"Iraq was in violation of how many UN resolutions before OIF? The coalition that ivaded Iraq did so to enforce the terms of UN Resolution 1441, and did not act alone or arbitrarily,"
You did not answer the question, and remainder is true and factual. Nothing in it was "shameful apologetics."
"The Soviets took NO steps to minimize civilian casualties or to establish an elected Afghan government, nor did the USSR consult the UN before it invaded."
Please tell me where I'm wrong. The statements above are true and factual. Nothing in it was "shameful apologetics."
If you believe it was in the strategic interests of this nation to simply hope for the best in Iraq post 9/11 given what was known about Iraqi support for Islamic terror before and Iraq's intentions re WMD as stated by Saddam had there been no invasion, I'm glad you are NOT in charge of US foreign policy and I'm glad John F'n Kerry's "global test" is irrelevant.
I suppose you were too busy worshipping at the altar of state power to hear of the first and second Lancet studies on Iraq mortality rates. There are also the IFHS survey and the initial ORB survey and its update.
IBC uses passive surveillance which always gives undercounts.
No, it's not--it's a press release from the US Treasury--the figures are accurate or they are not, and you've refuted none of them.
I asked you for a study which could attribute the growth in tax revenue to Bush's tax cuts. I didn't ask for the figures, which I am already familiar with.
No sir. You asked what Islamic terror orgs were active in Iraq and you were told.
The current scholarship on "Islamic terror orgs" is far more insightful than the opinions of a Los Angeles Times correspondent and a Newsweek columnist. You can actually look this stuff up.
Those who "cooridinate labour" have the heaviest tax burden, while wage earners who pay less in taxes to begin with saw less tax releif. Every job I've ever had was offered to me by somebody who "coordianted labour" and made more money than I did, and no job I've ever had was offered to me a "worker."
That you've never been offered a job by a worker means nothing to me. Worker cooperatives still continue to exist, despite having passed you over for possible career opportunities. So should coordinators have the heaviest tax burden. Try a thought experiment: what is required to sustain a rich man's lifestyle (you can imagine a rich woman, if you'd like) and what is required for a poor man to live? Nothing particularly Marxist about this. That you disagree simply means we don't share the same values.
You asked what "non-trivial" difference exists between Democrats and Republicans on economic issues, and you were told "Democrats think the 45 cents of every dollar I earn that is confiscated by local, state & federal taxes is not enough; Republicans think it's too much."
So you claim. If you cannot show me that this monolithic evil called the Democratic party wants 45 cents of every dollar confiscated, then what use is such a statement? If you've nothing but opinion, I can't say I find your argument particularly convincing.
I should have specified, of course, that I meant these as "shameful apologetics," and not the foregoing:
Iraq was in violation of how many UN resolutions before OIF? The coalition that ivaded Iraq did so to enforce the terms of UN Resolution 1441, and did not act alone or arbitrarily
The Soviets took NO steps to minimize civilian casualties or to establish an elected Afghan government, nor did the USSR consult the UN before it invaded.
The first is patently absurd. Are you seriously proposing that all nations in violation of UN resolutions should prepare for 'humanitarian intervention'? That such invasions are justified? I would be thankful that you're not the president but I'm not convinced you would cause any more human suffering than the current administration.
The second is much the same as the first. Even if we accept that the Soviets took no steps to minimize civilian casualties (which they certainly claimed to, not unlike the American military currently) so what? Consider shortly after 9/11, when occasionally someone would say "Why did they attack us? Perhaps we should work to understand the root causes of 'Islamic terror'." Invariably, that person would be shouted down, dubbed a traitor, whatever. Because Americans did not care what their reasoning was, the act was despicable.
Why then is this somehow different from American bombings of Iraqi civilians? Why would our moral judgment be any different? Oh, but of course we don't intend to hurt civilians, it simply happens. Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs....
War criminals constantly speak of "moral equivalencies." All of this is virtually indistinguishable from Stalinism, at its worst. share
"The current scholarship on "Islamic terror orgs" is far more insightful than the opinions of a Los Angeles Times correspondent and a Newsweek columnist. You can actually look this stuff up."
Yeah, I did--those were not "opinions," they were what those reporters observed and reported.
"I asked you for a study which could attribute the growth in tax revenue to Bush's tax cuts."
Feel free to look for one yourself. Under Bush's tax cuts, I have more of what I EARNED to spend, and the government collects taxes every time I have. The fact that RECORD revenues have been collected is only further evidence to my own experience.
"Perhaps we should work to understand the root causes of 'Islamic terror'"
It's very easy to understand--it's called Holy War and every single person who does not pray 5 times a day facing Mecca and obey sharia law as defined by the mullahs, ayatollahs and imams running Islamic theocracies such as Iran and/or the numerous Islamic militant sects is an INFIDEL and will be killed. I've lived in the Middle East and seen it for myself--this war is about a bunch of corrupt clerics using religion to further their own quests for political power, much like the wars that Europeans fought over the hundreds of years when church and state were one.
"Iraq was in violation of how many UN resolutions before OIF? The coalition that ivaded Iraq did so to enforce the terms of UN Resolution 1441, and did not act alone or arbitrarily."
You still haven't answered the question, and I'm stating that IRAQ UNDER SADDAM & SONS more than earned OIF. They cheered on 9/11 and called for MORE attacks on the second anniversary, IN ADDITION to hosting conventions of Islamic terror orgs, writing $25K checks to the surviving family of Palestinain suicide bombers and endorsing Islamic terrorism in STATE MEDIA. As if that were not enough, Saddam HIMSELF told George Piro what his intent was if there had been no invasion--he would have reconstituted his WMD programs, and hoping he and his mutant sons would straighten up and fly right is not how nations that have been subject to Islamic terrorism bet smartly.
Feel free to criticize and second guess Bush all you want--given what he knew before OIF and what Saddam himself said he intended to do if there had been no OIF, it was the right thing to do and I'm glad he did it.
"Why did they attack us?" is relevant ONLY if a nation is willing to craft its foreign and domestic policies so as not to offend Islamic militants, and that's not going to happen. These people would rather see their sister DEAD than in a bikini, and they don't think women should be able to drive cars, vote or even leave the home without a male family member escorting them and veiled head to toe in a burqa. Are you familiar with "honor killings"? Are you aware that homosexuals are stoned to death in Iran? Tell THESE people about equal rights for women and gay marriage and see how many friends you make and people you influence.
When Islamic militants declare war on the US and use airliners full of innocent civilians as missiles that hit office buildings full of MORE innocent civilians as well as the Pentagon, war is what they want and war is what they're getting, on our terms and not on theirs. I would rather have jihadis throw themselves at the US Marines or US Army than civilians and our firefighters and police as on 9/11, and the fact they no longer have an ally in Iraq is bad news for them and good news for us.
The Soviets were absolute ANIMALS in Afghanistan, and that's why the people turned against them from the very beginning. That's also why the Taliban were routed in a few weeks and are not able to do much beyond hit and run ambushes from the Waziristan region across the Pakistan border. When Afghan civilians are hurt in Taliban attacks, they know that US and NATO medics will be there to help them. To equate OEF with the Soviet experience in any way is absurd. After "Helicopters, airplanes, soldiers and tanks were involved," there IS no comparison.
"Why then is this somehow different from American bombings of Iraqi civilians? Why would our moral judgment be any different?"
Because the Soviets DID intend to hurt civilians, and American bombings are aimed at Iraqi insugents who HIDE BEHIND AND AMONG Iraqi civilians.
"Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs...."
Well aren't we snide and simplistic.
Any idea how many French, Belgian, Italian, Dutch, German and any number of other civilians were killed because they could not get out of the way of the Allied military offensives that defeated Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan? The number has to be in the MILLIONS.
Can't blame the Nazis, Fascists or Japanese militarists at all, can we?
No, let's all feel guilty and cry about what our military did by accident in the process of defeating those regimes, right?
"War criminals constantly speak of "moral equivalencies." So did you--with your comparison of the Soviet invasion of 1979 and OEF/OIF.
Sophistry at its worst.
"If you cannot show me that this monolithic evil called the Democratic party wants 45 cents of every dollar confiscated, then what use is such a statement? If you've nothing but opinion, I can't say I find your argument particularly convincing."
No, dude, that's not my opinion, that 55 cents is what I'm left with after I pay my local city business license tax, my cable TV franchise "fee," my long distance phone federal access "fee," my federal payroll tax, my property taxes, my state business corporation tax, state, local and federal gasoline taxes, my Social Security and FICA withholding and my income tax. The mayor of my city wants to RAISE my city business license tax--she's a Democrat, and the members of the City Council who oppose her are Republicans, and their opposition is because raising taxes does not encourage or enhance the business environment and lowering them does. I own my business, so I actually SEE what I gross, and I have to write checks to government FIRST. I don't just cash my paycheck every two weeks and complain--I get a paycheck ONLY after government gets its take. I pay DEARLY for the privelege of sitting by the phone and hoping it rings with more business.
"That you've never been offered a job by a worker means nothing to me. Worker cooperatives still continue to exist, despite having passed you over for possible career opportunities."
Ha ha! Maybe in a bee hive. I was a worker long enough to know I'd rather be working for myself than somebody else, and life in the business world is not a "co-op." Life in a co-op is about trying to figure out how to get away with doing as little as possible and still keep getting paid and being "average." I'm above "average" and will be paid accordingly, but only if I WORK for it.
"Try a thought experiment: what is required to sustain a rich man's lifestyle (you can imagine a rich woman, if you'd like) and what is required for a poor man to live?"
Try real life: I sustain my lifestyle by working hard FOR MYSELF, and the "poor" can do what I did--better themselves, educate themselves, and not sit back whining and complaining that that "rich guy" who owns the company has more money than they do. That "rich guy" invested capital and took risks, and if he ultimately fails, the government would be confiscating its take until the doors close. The "poor" don't have to stay poor, and there are too many stories of people who started with almost nothing and became very rich because they developed their talents and WORKED AT IT.
Class envy is VERY Marxist.
Feel free to look for one yourself. Under Bush's tax cuts, I have more of what I EARNED to spend, and the government collects taxes every time I have. The fact that RECORD revenues have been collected is only further evidence to my own experience.
A correlation exists, certainly. So too does a correlation exist between declining numbers of Atlantic Pirates and Global Warming.
As for your spiel about Islamic terrorism, it is again in error. Clearly, you haven't read what scholarship exists. Your post is awash with various mythologies about Islam and "Islamic terrorism."
You still haven't answered the question, and I'm stating that IRAQ UNDER SADDAM & SONS more than earned OIF. They cheered on 9/11 and called for MORE attacks on the second anniversary, IN ADDITION to hosting conventions of Islamic terror orgs, writing $25K checks to the surviving family of Palestinain suicide bombers and endorsing Islamic terrorism in STATE MEDIA. As if that were not enough, Saddam HIMSELF told George Piro what his intent was if there had been no invasion--he would have reconstituted his WMD programs, and hoping he and his mutant sons would straighten up and fly right is not how nations that have been subject to Islamic terrorism bet smartly.
Again, communication (something I hope you can appreciate) has broken down. If you believe Saddam's actions justified OIF then you should have simply stated that and, if you were serious, enumerated the various offenses against humanity undertaken by his regime. This, as opposed to, of course, a weak attempt to justify war with UN resolution violations. I suspect you don't think the United States should invade Israel or Morocco.
Resort to popular credulity is not, in my estimation, very compelling. I'll tell you now that I don't believe the invasion (and its rather significant death toll) is justified. Good that you mention Palestinian suicide bombers as the literature in this regard is superb. And its verdict? Very much in opposition to your "holy war", clash of civilizations, civilized West meets primitive East, delusion. Try the work of Scott Atran, if you're interested.
Because the Soviets DID intend to hurt civilians, and American bombings are aimed at Iraqi insugents who HIDE BEHIND AND AMONG Iraqi civilians.
If we analyze Soviet actions, yes, it seems clear they either intended to hurt civilians (who they claimed were insurgents, familiar, I know) or thought so little of Afghani lives that they carelessly conducted their war. This isn't controversial. Neither is the fact that when insurgents HIDE BEHIND AND AMONG Iraqi civilians, you're not justified in bombing the whole lot of them. Further, all of this presupposes that Iraqis have no right to defend themselves from foreign aggression.
When Islamic militants declare war on the US and use airliners full of innocent civilians as missiles that hit office buildings full of MORE innocent civilians as well as the Pentagon, war is what they want and war is what they're getting, on our terms and not on theirs. I would rather have jihadis throw themselves at the US Marines or US Army than civilians and our firefighters and police as on 9/11, and the fact they no longer have an ally in Iraq is bad news for them and good news for us.
So would I. That is, however, not a justification for either the Afghan war or the Iraqi war.
Any idea how many French, Belgian, Italian, Dutch, German and any number of other civilians were killed because they could not get out of the way of the Allied military offensives that defeated Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan? The number has to be in the MILLIONS.
Can't blame the Nazis, Fascists or Japanese militarists at all, can we?
I find this part confusing. If you had understood anything that I've written up to now, you would know that I believe that we can and should blame the Nazis, Fascists and Japanese militarists. When you undertake a war of aggression you are responsible for every evil that results from that.
As to Allied bombing of civilians during the war, that is a complex issue. That the Allies committed war crimes is uncontroversial. I believe that any act we would judge a war crime should be judged on a case by case basis. If it can be shown that actions judged crimes were not only unavoidable, but undertaken in a manner that preserved the most human lives, then I would judge those actions justified. Again, very complex, and my feelings on the issue are mixed. I don't find this analogous enough to the current circumstances in Iraq to be relevant, I'm afraid.
"War criminals constantly speak of "moral equivalencies." So did you--with your comparison of the Soviet invasion of 1979 and OEF/OIF.
Sophistry at its worst.
I chose the Soviet invasion to highlight what I perceive as your hypocrisy. I firmly oppose both invasions, which, I believe, makes me more consistent than you. When I say that war criminals speak of "moral equivalencies," I don't mean that they simply address the matter, or utter the phrase in passing, or form the vowels and consonants necessary to pronounce the phrase. I mean that they appraise their actions as being less morally perverse than some other illusory foe, and from this draw their justification. If I had opposed the Khmer Rouge, and in so doing slaughtered one less than 1.7 million (we'll assume, for clarity, that this is the precise number) would I have been justified? Clearly, I was not so great a monster as Saloth Sar, shouldn't I feel justified?
No, dude, that's not my opinion, that 55 cents is what I'm left with after I pay my local city business license tax, my cable TV franchise "fee," my long distance phone federal access "fee," my federal payroll tax, my property taxes, my state business corporation tax, state, local and federal gasoline taxes, my Social Security and FICA withholding and my income tax. The mayor of my city wants to RAISE my city business license tax--she's a Democrat, and the members of the City Council who oppose her are Republicans, and their opposition is because raising taxes does not encourage or enhance the business environment and lowering them does. I own my business, so I actually SEE what I gross, and I have to write checks to government FIRST. I don't just cash my paycheck every two weeks and complain--I get a paycheck ONLY after government gets its take. I pay DEARLY for the privelege of sitting by the phone and hoping it rings with more business.
That you pay 45 cents of every dollar to the government is not proof that Democrats wish it that way. Try an analysis of every Democratic candidate's policy positions at some level of government. If there you could show that Democrats predominantly favour tax increases then I think you'd have something. Until then, how can I assume that any Democrat believes that what is ought to be?
That your mayor wishes to raise taxes also means little. One Democrat does not a party make. Also, to what end should we keep lowering taxes? What is it that you envision? That we all derive our morality and worth from the market?
Try real life: I sustain my lifestyle by working hard FOR MYSELF, and the "poor" can do what I did--better themselves, educate themselves, and not sit back whining and complaining that that "rich guy" who owns the company has more money than they do. That "rich guy" invested capital and took risks, and if he ultimately fails, the government would be confiscating its take until the doors close. The "poor" don't have to stay poor, and there are too many stories of people who started with almost nothing and became very rich because they developed their talents and WORKED AT IT.
Class envy is VERY Marxist.
Why then do statistics on social and economic mobility in the United States paint such a dismal picture? Why does Sweden (lousy Reds) constantly surpass the United States? Because the notion that everyone, if only they're willing to try, can pick themselves up by their boot straps is an illusion. Of course, stories and anecdotal evidence, I also believe, should always trump what we can learn through sound scientific method and empiricism.
Also, would you dispute that talents and abilities are more often than not innate? Could it also be posited that one's ability to work hard is innate? Why then would we wish to craft a system where rewards constantly accrue to winners of this genetic lottery? Does that not seem arbitrary? Or perhaps, this is the best way to perpetuate the species, weed out all the inferior elements?
I'm not particularly envious of this fictive other class. I am well equipped to triumph in the current marketplace. And yet, my opposition is based solely on principle. Odd, don't you agree? share
"Your post is awash with various mythologies about Islam and "Islamic terrorism."
Please point out what "mythologies" I wrote of. OBL's rhetoric is rife with jihadist sentiment, ditto Ahmadenijad and the Iranian radical clerics. "Honor killings" are very much a part of Middle Eastern and Muslim culture, and you obviously do not understand what their religion means to them.
"If you believe Saddam's actions justified OIF then you should have simply stated that and, if you were serious, enumerated the various offenses against humanity undertaken by his regime."
Oh please--don't tell me what I "should" have done as if you are some authority. It's hardly necessary for me to "enumerate" FURTHER for you--Saddam's history speaks for itself, and your blithe, glib dismissals of the LA Times and Newsweek reports as "opinion" and invocation of a lack of "scholarship" tell me you don't consider convincing what I've seen with my own eyes during my life time.
Dude, what gives you the idea that I have any duty to convince YOU? Are you some kind of authority figure in real life or something? Get over it--I'm not one of your pupils.
"I suspect you don't think the United States should invade Israel or Morocco."
And you'd be right. However, if either of those nations hosted conventions of Islamic militants, encouraged terror attacks in state media, wrote $25K checks to the families of suicide bombers and and used state run media to call for further attacks on the US on the second anniversary of 9/11, I would support swift, massive and decisive military action to eliminate and/or disarm that government.
"I don't find this analogous enough to the current circumstances in Iraq to be relevant, I'm afraid."
You're "afraid" you don't "find this analogous enough to the current circumstances in Iraq to be relevant"? Really? That's your "finding"? I'd care if this were a court of law and I was a lawyer arguing before you, a judge wearing a powdered wig, but since it isn't and you're not, your "findings" are moot.
"That your mayor wishes to raise taxes also means little. One Democrat does not a party make. Also, to what end should we keep lowering taxes? What is it that you envision? That we all derive our morality and worth from the market?"
I don't doubt it means little to you--you don't own and operate a business here. It means a LOT to me since I'll have to part with MORE of what I EARN, and Democrats raise taxes, dude. Barry Obama is promising to raise taxes. Bubbah Clinton ran on a middle class tax CUT, the signed into law a retroactive tax HIKE as soon as he was sworn in. To THIS end we should keep lowering taxes: when we have a government that serves the people and not the other way around.
"That you pay 45 cents of every dollar to the government is not proof that Democrats wish it that way. Try an analysis of every Democratic candidate's policy positions at some level of government. If there you could show that Democrats predominantly favour tax increases then I think you'd have something."
Do you enjoy being obtuse? I've been voting since 1984, and I don't need any further "analysis of every Democratic candidate's policy positions at some level of government" to tell me what my intellect guided by my experience has already shown. I don't have to "show" you diddly--I write enough checks. Democrats raise taxes. Their answer to nearly every social problen is "I pay more."
"Why then do statistics on social and economic mobility in the United States paint such a dismal picture?"
What statistics have you cited? NONE. Twain said it best: There are lies, damned lies and statistics, and don't tell me there is no opportunity here. I see it all around me, and the fact that I'm my own boss is proof there is PLENTY of social and economic mobility. You can show me all the pie charts, bar graphs and Venn diagrams in the world telling me how the deck is stacked agianst me and that I should be glad to be a worker bee in an American iteration of the Eurodouchebag high tax nanny state--I'll take my chances under the meritocracy of US capitalism. If it CAN be done, it WILL be done, and there are winners and losers in life.
"Of course, stories and anecdotal evidence, I also believe, should always trump what we can learn through sound scientific method and empiricism."
We agree. I AM "anecdotal evidence." My real life experience always trumps "what we can learn through sound scientific method and empiricism."
"Also, would you dispute that talents and abilities are more often than not innate? Could it also be posited that one's ability to work hard is innate? Why then would we wish to craft a system where rewards constantly accrue to winners of this genetic lottery? Does that not seem arbitrary?"
Winners and losers in life, son. Get used to it. Life ain't fair or we'd all be rock stars. I don't owe the lazy, stupid or incompetent a free lunch, a plasma TV or $200 sneakers. I earned what I've acheived.
Ever read "Harrison Bergeron," a VERY short story by Kurt Vonnegut to see why efforts by government to "level the playing field" are always folly and doom us all to average?
Here's an excerpt and a link:
THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.
Some things about living still weren’t quite right, though. April, for instance, still drove people crazy by not being springtime. And it was in that clammy month that the H-G men took George and Hazel Bergeron’s fourteen-year-old son, Harrison, away.
It was tragic, all right, but George and Hazel couldn’t think about it very hard. Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn’t think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains.
George and Hazel were watching television. There were tears on Hazel’s cheeks, but she’d forgotten for the moment what they were about.
On the television screen were ballerinas.
A buzzer sounded in George’s head. His thoughts fled in panic, like bandits from a burglar alarm.
“That was a real pretty dance, that dance they just did,” said Hazel.
“Huh?” said George.
“That dance – it was nice,” said Hazel.
“Yup,” said George. He tried to think a little about the ballerinas. They weren’t really very good – no better than anybody else would have been, anyway. They were burdened with sashweights and bags of birdshot, and their faces were masked, so that no one, seeing a free and graceful gesture or a pretty face, would feel like something the cat drug in. George was toying with the vague notion that maybe dancers shouldn’t be handicapped. But he didn’t get very far with it before another noise in his ear radio scattered his thoughts.
George winced. So did two out of the eight ballerinas.
I'm above average, and I'm happy about it.
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html
You're talking about the land of milk and honey and I live in the land of cows and bees.
Do you vote in US elections? Are you a US taxpayer?
If the answer to either of those questions is no, what exactly are you trying to accomplish here?
share
I don't doubt it means little to you--you don't own and operate a business here.Oh please...continue to insult our intelligence by telling us you are a hard working business owner. Keep it up. No one is buying it. You post an average of 6-8 posts a day, many of them during normal business hours for most of the United States (I'm willing to concede that you might like in Hawaii and post early in the morning) and most of the long enough to require a considerable amount of your time and energy. What more, this does not include whatever duration you spend reading posts and deciding which ones to respond to. You honestly expect us to believe that YOU, a self-employed business man, have the time it takes to sit at a computer and argue with people you have nothing but contempt for on an internet movie forum? I'm not buying it.
It means a LOT to me since I'll have to part with MORE of what I EARN, and Democrats raise taxes, dude. Barry Obama is promising to raise taxes. Bubbah Clinton ran on a middle class tax CUT, the signed into law a retroactive tax HIKE as soon as he was sworn in. To THIS end we should keep lowering taxes: when we have a government that serves the people and not the other way around.
Typical right-wing projection: "everyone else's problems in life are their own lot, but MINE are the result of forces beyond my control and I therefore deserve pity".
Well, I suppose I could give you a dose of your own medicine: you have made a poor business choice in entrepreneurship in that community. If the taxes are too high there, simply uproot your business and move to another one where the taxes are more acceptable. This is the same advice you would likely give a worker who complained that his wages were insufficient to support his family in the area he live: move and get a higher paying job. What is good for the good is good for the gander. You blame your problems on others, while simultaneously claiming to despise those who do the very same thing.
I'm not going to defend the economic policies of the Democratic party: they are generally almost as destructive and counter-productive as those of the Republicans. Not only is the tax system unfair to working people, it is unfair to small business owners (which you claim to be) and the self-employed. But I'm also not going to judge the tax proposal of your Mayor, especially since I don't know which community you are referring to or why she has proposed these increases. I do not that it is as foolish to assume all taxes are bad as it is to assume that they are all good. And don't bother defending your assessment, you have ZERO credibility with me so I generally assume most of what you say is a lie.
You're talking about the land of milk and honey and I live in the land of cows and bees.
Ah, another typical right wing fallacy: the straw man. Your opponent suggests a modification of the social or economic system in the hopes of improving things, and you accuse him of being a 1)wide eyed utopianist, 2) fist pumping Marxist, 3) sweaty palmed syndicalist, or 4) any combination of all of the above. This would make as much sense as accusing you of being fascist or totalitarian because of your support for the war in Iraq. I mean, you MAY be a fascist or totalitarian, I don't know...but I can't assess that you are one based on that alone. Likewise, there are a great degree of ideological positions between freemarket libertarianism and utopian Marxism. Accusing everyone who doesn't fall into column A must be an advocate of column B is intentional dishonesty, and you know it. share
"Oh please...continue to insult our intelligence by telling us you are a hard working business owner. Keep it up. No one is buying it. You post an average of 6-8 posts a day, many of them during normal business hours for most of the United States (I'm willing to concede that you might like in Hawaii and post early in the morning) and most of the long enough to require a considerable amount of your time and energy. What more, this does not include whatever duration you spend reading posts and deciding which ones to respond to. You honestly expect us to believe that YOU, a self-employed business man, have the time it takes to sit at a computer and argue with people you have nothing but contempt for on an internet movie forum? I'm not buying it."
It's not for sale, and since I'm my own boss, goofing off on the web between gigs is perk. Yes. I have plenty of time, but I type fast and know what I speak of, so it takes a lot less time than somebody like you would think.
"I'm not going to defend the economic policies of the Democratic party: they are generally almost as destructive and counter-productive as those of the Republicans. Not only is the tax system unfair to working people, it is unfair to small business owners (which you claim to be) and the self-employed. But I'm also not going to judge the tax proposal of your Mayor, especially since I don't know which community you are referring to or why she has proposed these increases. I do not that it is as foolish to assume all taxes are bad as it is to assume that they are all good. And don't bother defending your assessment, you have ZERO credibility with me so I generally assume most of what you say is a lie."
I have ZERO credibility with you? Was I even TALKING to you?
We were done with your NRA somebody like me is going to kill somebody like you BLATANT threat thread, that ended with "we shall see."
No, we shan't.
t's not for sale, and since I'm my own boss, goofing off on the web between gigs is perk. Yes. I have plenty of time, but I type fast and know what I speak of, so it takes a lot less time than somebody like you would thinkStill not buying it. Goofing off on the web is also a perk of living in your mom's basement, or staying home while your wife earns a living to pay for your World of Warcraft account.
Yes, you were. This is a public forum, meaning that you are talking to everyone who has the ability to read it. If you would prefer that only one person read your posts, send them as private messages.
I have ZERO credibility with you? Was I even TALKING to you?
Or, if you like, you can put me on ignore. Then you won't have to hear from me ever again. share
"Still not buying it. Goofing off on the web is also a perk of living in your mom's basement, or staying home while your wife earns a living to pay for your World of Warcraft account."
And it's still not for sale.
Dude, since you're so fascinated with doing detective work about the timing of my posts, have you factored in that I'm on EST and these boards may not be, or noticed the gaps of several hours at a time between them?
That's when I'm out earning a buck. I live alone in my own house, I'm not married, and my girlfriend provides no $ for any of my entertainment. She doesn't have to--she IS my entertainment.
She is, however, laughing her ass off reading your pop eyed, spittle flying, lightning bolts shooting out your ass posts. YOU are providing her entertainment, and she thanks you for it!
All I know about WofWC is what I saw on that episode of South Park about it. Doesn't look fun. But stirring up the hornet's nest of Prozac is a BLAST!!! No way would I put you on ignore!
The beauty of owning and running my own business is that I don't have to be at some stupid office 40-50 hours a week (my cell phone is my office) and between gigs I can surf all I want, ready to rock and roll if business rings.
I'm glad that makes you so angry.
Dude, since you're so fascinated with doing detective work about the timing of my posts, have you factored in that I'm on EST and these boards may not be, or noticed the gaps of several hours at a time between them?Yeah, I have. I even pointed that out on the first post. And I still don't believe you.
That's when I'm out earning a buck. I live alone in my own house, I'm not married, and my girlfriend provides no $ for any of my entertainment. She doesn't have to--she IS my entertainment.Well, tell your made up girlfriend I'm glad I could provide some comfort to what must be a cold and miserable life as your companion. I'm sure she could do better.
She is, however, laughing her ass off reading your pop eyed, spittle flying, lightning bolts shooting out your ass posts. YOU are providing her entertainment, and she thanks you for it!
As I said before, you have zero credibility with me so continuing to make claims about your carefree, successful, girl-friend filled life is pointless. I don't believe you.
The beauty of owning and running my own business is that I don't have to be at some stupid office 40-50 hours a week (my cell phone is my office) and between gigs I can surf all I want, ready to rock and roll if business rings.Yeah, sure. I've known plenty of self-employed business owners, and they worked their asses off and sure as hell didn't have time to spend HOURS upon HOURS on message boards arguing with people. If they did, they wouldn't be nearly as successful as you claim to be.
I'm glad that makes you so angry.It doesn't make me angry at all, its just funny to me that you think we're buying it. By all means, I don't expect you to stop...why would you? But, the fact that you are so OBSESSED with my doubt of your claims just lends credence to my theory: why would you care what I thought about it unless the entire purpose of talking about it was to get people to believe it? I could tell you what I do for a living (nothing particularly glamorous but I enjoy it) and you might well say "Bulls*it! There is NO WAY you do THAT for a living!" to which I'd say "Whatever, believe whatever you want I don't care".
And yet...you just can't let it go that I don't believe you. share
"I could tell you what I do for a living (nothing particularly glamorous but I enjoy it) and you might well say "Bulls*it! There is NO WAY you do THAT for a living!" to which I'd say "Whatever, believe whatever you want I don't care".
Wow, Prozac--we have more in common than we thought!
"I've known plenty of self-employed business owners, and they worked their asses off and sure as hell didn't have time to spend HOURS upon HOURS on message boards arguing with people. If they did, they wouldn't be nearly as successful as you claim to be."
"As I said before, you have zero credibility with me so continuing to make claims about your carefree, successful, girl-friend filled life is pointless."
I've DONE the working my ass off thing and I'll do it again--you're familiar with feast or famine I'm sure. Some weeks I tweedle my thumbs, others I'm trying to be three places at once and emergencies not of my making drop in my lap all the time. But that's OK--I charge extra for those.
You VASTLY overestimate the time I waste on the web. How successful exactly have I claimed to be? I'm my own boss, but I sweat the phone ringing every day and haven't taken a vacation since 1995 so I can be here to work when the phone DOES ring. Hardly "carefree," and my girlfriend DOES have to be at an office 40-50 hours a week and we don't live together, so I don't get to see her nearly as much as we'd like.
"And yet...you just can't let it go that I don't believe you."
No, that's not it all. I just enjoy seeing what nonsense you'll respond with.
Stimulus-response is how most primitive life forms operate.
No, that's not it all. I just enjoy seeing what nonsense you'll respond with.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sure."
Man, there's that absolutely DEVESTATING repartee again.
What's next--"I know you are but what am I?"
"Unlikely."
Wit-like rapier all the way.
I've read Harrison Bergeron and I thought it was fairly decent. I'm not sure why you brought it up unless you consider it a sound refutation of one of my arguments (which one?). Then it's simply a straw man.
Winners and losers in life, son. Get used to it. Life ain't fair or we'd all be rock stars.
You're certainly doing your best to keep it that way.
Do you enjoy being obtuse? I've been voting since 1984, and I don't need any further "analysis of every Democratic candidate's policy positions at some level of government" to tell me what my intellect guided by my experience has already shown. I don't have to "show" you diddly--I write enough checks. Democrats raise taxes. Their answer to nearly every social problen is "I pay more."
"Why then do statistics on social and economic mobility in the United States paint such a dismal picture?"
What statistics have you cited? NONE. Twain said it best: There are lies, damned lies and statistics, and don't tell me there is no opportunity here. I see it all around me, and the fact that I'm my own boss is proof there is PLENTY of social and economic mobility. You can show me all the pie charts, bar graphs and Venn diagrams in the world telling me how the deck is stacked agianst me and that I should be glad to be a worker bee in an American iteration of the Eurodouchebag high tax nanny state--I'll take my chances under the meritocracy of US capitalism. If it CAN be done, it WILL be done, and there are winners and losers in life.
"Of course, stories and anecdotal evidence, I also believe, should always trump what we can learn through sound scientific method and empiricism."
We agree. I AM "anecdotal evidence." My real life experience always trumps "what we can learn through sound scientific method and empiricism."
I was being snide, unfortunately, when I stated "stories and anecdotal evidence... should always trump what we can learn through sound scientific method and empiricism." I happen to believe the opposite. That you believe this, I'm afraid, is just further proof of your profound bent toward anti-intellectualism.
Twain uttered that little pearl while quoting Benjamin Disraeli, who most likely did not utter that phrase. Not particularly illuminating, I'm afraid. If you can show that statistics are wrong, were poorly gathered, analyzed, etc. then do so. Otherwise, they're the best approximation of a reality (eg., how many bakers live in St. Louis, or whatever) that we have.
Finally a truth however. I didn't cite any statistics for economic and social mobility. I should have, but, I will admit, I haven't the sustained interest. You can certainly search for them yourself. Google scholar, perhaps.
You're "afraid" you don't "find this analogous enough to the current circumstances in Iraq to be relevant"? Really? That's your "finding"? I'd care if this were a court of law and I was a lawyer arguing before you, a judge wearing a powdered wig, but since it isn't and you're not, your "findings" are moot.
I think you might have come off the hinge here, but I'll oblige you. What were the conditions that precipitated World War II? What were the conditions that precipitated Operation Iraqi Freedom? That they're very much different should be transparently obvious. If you disagree, and care enough to, you'll have to show me where they're comparable.
And you'd be right. However, if either of those nations hosted conventions of Islamic militants, encouraged terror attacks in state media, wrote $25K checks to the families of suicide bombers and and used state run media to call for further attacks on the US on the second anniversary of 9/11, I would support swift, massive and decisive military action to eliminate and/or disarm that government.
Again I see this cheques to families of suicide bombers. Let me share with you a finding of Scott Atran and Robert Axelrod:
"We found that willingness to allow compensation decreased as the amount offered increased: one hundred thousand dinars [this exchange was with the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, dinars being a common currency in the territories] is significantly less acceptable than ten thousand dinars, and one million dinars is much less acceptable."
(Quoted in "Reframing Sacred Values," by Scott Atran & Robert Axelrod, Negotiation Journal, July 2008 referring to research conducted previously - Atran, Axelrod, and Davis. 2007. "Sacred barriers to conflict resolution," Science 1039-1040)
See how research and scholarship can be useful, even instructive?
You would accept that Saddam was an authoritarian, no? He did not rule with popular approval? Why then would we punish the entire population for the turpitude of its authoritarian leader? And what of the US media which occasionally seems intent on a military strike against Iran? Is a swift, massive, and decisive military strike against the US now justified? Or is this only a fraction of what must occur before it's acceptable to disarm American government? What if I hosted a convention of Islamic terror organizations and we all met at a Holiday Inn and discussed billiards or literary theory? All very absurd.
Oh please--don't tell me what I "should" have done as if you are some authority. It's hardly necessary for me to "enumerate" FURTHER for you--Saddam's history speaks for itself, and your blithe, glib dismissals of the LA Times and Newsweek reports as "opinion" and invocation of a lack of "scholarship" tell me you don't consider convincing what I've seen with my own eyes during my life time.
Dude, what gives you the idea that I have any duty to convince YOU? Are you some kind of authority figure in real life or something? Get over it--I'm not one of your pupils.
First, we should actually know the history, and it's clear to me that you don't. Second, there's nothing glib about my dismissal. It is a fact that these organizations met at a convention hosted by the Iraqi government. That is the extent of our knowledge. Did they formulate a complex strategy for world invasion? Perhaps. Do we know that? No. Most likely, it was a show of solidarity. Which is remarkable, considering Saddam has been despised by various Islamic groups for decades (even by many of the attendants).
I rather naively assumed you were making an honest attempt to convince me of your correctness of thought. I then outlined what I would find compelling. Seemed reasonable at the time and still seems reasonable. I'm not sure what you mean with your pupils comment, you are most likely older than I am, dude.
Please point out what "mythologies" I wrote of. OBL's rhetoric is rife with jihadist sentiment, ditto Ahmadenijad and the Iranian radical clerics. "Honor killings" are very much a part of Middle Eastern and Muslim culture, and you obviously do not understand what their religion means to them.
The work by Fawaz Gerges is very good. So too is the work of Scott Atran. Robert Pape's work is instructive, although dated. Oliver Roy's work is also good. Or try http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/ if you don't wish to track down literature (understandable).
Also, you seem to imply that Islam is monolithic. Very much like Christianity, there are various strains, various ideas, various practices, etc. In fact, a great many of today's suicide terrorists reject wahabist (which prescribes much of what you've talked of, exceptionally rigid obedience to the state, ultra-conservative notions of dress, behaviour, etc.) and most salafi creeds (highly fundamentalist). The world is a complex place.
But what if what you say were true? Is war the best solution? Peace or compromise being impossible? Again, if we look to the current literature (yes, again, I find this more compelling than Los Angeles Times columns, or Washington Post Op-Eds, or whatever) we find that peace building is possible. So, if we can reach a solution in two ways, one, (we'll call this your way) by bombing Arab dictatorships back to the stone age, or two, by attempting successful negotiation by identifying what differences exist between our sacred values and theirs, exploiting the vagaries of these sacred values, showing respect where we can, "provisionally prioriti[zing] values," refining our sacred values to "exclude outmoded claims," apologizing for what we do regret (I'm sure you despise this one), and creatively reframing sacred values, then shouldn't we? (The quoted parts are directly from "Reframing Sacred Values," previously mentioned)
The barriers simply aren't as insuperable as you believe.
share
You DO enjoy being obtuse, and the fact that you rely on statstics to prove what can't be done in the face of all the people who've done it is proof positive.
"I was being snide, unfortunately, when I stated "stories and anecdotal evidence... should always trump what we can learn through sound scientific method and empiricism." I happen to believe the opposite. That you believe this, I'm afraid, is just further proof of your profound bent toward anti-intellectualism."
Be a snide know-it-all to your heart's content--waste your life, it's yours to waste. I don't just believe it, I LIVE IT. Your statistics can show an aspiring athlete, musician, writer, film maker, businessman, etc. how his or her chances at acheiving great success are amlost nil--so get a nice boring job at the local co-op, be a common worker bee and just give up, right?
That's crap.
"Also, you seem to imply that Islam is monolithic. Very much like Christianity, there are various strains, various ideas, various practices, etc. In fact, a great many of todays suicide terrorists reject wahabist (which prescribes much of what you've talked of, exceptionally rigid obedience to the state, ultra-conservative notions of dress, behaviour, etc.) and most salafi creeds (highly fundamentalist). The world is a complex place."
You've lived in the Middle East, correct? Visit Saudi Arabia. Iran. Jordan. Egypt. Syria. You'll learn some things you'll never understand through "scholarship."
"I'm not sure why you brought it [Harrison Bergeron] up unless you consider it a sound refutation of one of my arguments (which one?)."
That was obvious to all but the most obtuse of us.
"I rather naively assumed you were making an honest attempt to convince me of your correctness of thought. I then outlined what I would find compelling. Seemed reasonable at the time and still seems reasonable. I'm not sure what you mean with your pupils comment, you are most likely older than I am, dude."
I'm 45. Man, I miss being young and knowing everything like you do. I've lived in the real world long enough to realize that scholarship does not trump the real world. It's the other way around. You seem to believe that you are the arbiter of what is and isn't relevant, true or factual, and that I have to "prove" what I say to your satisfaction. The tone of your posts is full of it.
"So, if we can reach a solution in two ways, one, (we'll call this your way) by bombing Arab dictatorships back to the stone age, or two, by attempting successful negotiation by identifying what differences exist between our sacred values and theirs, exploiting the vagaries of these sacred values, showing respect where we can, "provisionally prioriti[zing] values," refining our sacred values to "exclude outmoded claims," apologizing for what we do regret (I'm sure you despise this one), and creatively reframing sacred values, then shouldn't we? (The quoted parts are directly from "Reframing Sacred Values," previously mentioned)"
Neville Chamberlain would be so proud to see his legacy on line. How would you "negotiate" with people who want to kill you? Have you been paying attention to the rhetoric and ACTIONS of the Islamic fundamentalists in the last 40 or so years? What is the middle ground of "Death to America!" Daniel Pearl was BEHEADED on video while those responsible chanted "God is great!" Don't tell me about "exploiting the vagaries of these sacred values" and "showing respect where we can" because it's pure self delusion and naive self aggrandizement.
So ARE you a US voter or taxpayer?
You DO enjoy being obtuse, and the fact that you rely on statstics to prove what can't be done in the face of all the people who've done it is proof positive.
I never said it couldn't be done. Your thought is either too clumsy to understand nuance or subtlety or you're purposely misrepresenting what I've said.
Economic mobility statistics show not that it is impossible to move up in the United States, but that one is far less likely (we're dealing in probabilities here, I'm afraid) to achieve a higher level of accumulated wealth than one's parents in the United States than in nations like Sweden, or Norway, or France (horrifying, isn't it?). Nations which all have something in common - a functioning social safety net.
If you have no interest in a state which provides such a thing, fine. But do away with your 'meritocracy' delusions.
Be a snide know-it-all to your heart's content--waste your life, it's yours to waste. I don't just believe it, I LIVE IT. Your statistics can show an aspiring athlete, musician, writer, film maker, businessman, etc. how his or her chances at acheiving great success are amlost nil--so get a nice boring job at the local co-op, be a common worker bee and just give up, right?
That's crap.
That you were able to find success does not justify the current economic model. Your argument is nothing more than a crude fallacy of composition
And that's crap.
You've lived in the Middle East, correct? Visit Saudi Arabia. Iran. Jordan. Egypt. Syria. You'll learn some things you'll never understand through "scholarship."
Do I have to live in the middle east to be able to formulate an opinion on what constitutes acceptable foreign policy decisions?
No, I've never lived in the middle east. Which is why I turn to those who have, currently do, or conduct research there: political scientists, anthropologists, historians, and others. You've unintentionally shown why scholarship can be so useful.
"I'm not sure why you brought it [Harrison Bergeron] up unless you consider it a sound refutation of one of my arguments (which one?)."
That was obvious to all but the most obtuse of us.
Another fallacy, this time it is the causal fallacy known as the slippery slope argument. Unless, of course, you genuinely believe somewhere I advocated that the government actually set a standard of human ability, determined to be the mean, and through coercive force actually bar any from surpassing it.
I'm 45. Man, I miss being young and knowing everything like you do. I've lived in the real world long enough to realize that scholarship does not trump the real world. It's the other way around. You seem to believe that you are the arbiter of what is and isn't relevant, true or factual, and that I have to "prove" what I say to your satisfaction. The tone of your posts is full of it.
You seem to be labouring under the assumption that scholarship is written in a vacuum, a closed system of internal coherence. While that's true of mathematics, it is not true of other fields. Scholarship is the real world. It is, if done properly, the scientific method applied to the real world. In my opinion, that is the most, and often the only, meaningful way to determine truth.
If we formed the core of our knowledge through methods that you triumphantly extol, we would soon encounter trouble. How could we reconcile what you believe is true (because you've seen it with your own eyes) with what Pedro believes is true (which he has seen with his own eyes and which in this instance is antipodal to your reality)? If you truly intend to espouse the doctrine of factual relativism, then do so. Otherwise, what you've stated is a long and meandering argument of "it's right because I say so." Again, not very compelling.
I won't apologize for whatever misapprehensions you have about the tone of my posts. And no, I am very much far away from knowing everything.
Neville Chamberlain would be so proud to see his legacy on line. How would you "negotiate" with people who want to kill you? Have you been paying attention to the rhetoric and ACTIONS of the Islamic fundamentalists in the last 40 or so years? What is the middle ground of "Death to America!" Daniel Pearl was BEHEADED on video while those responsible chanted "God is great!" Don't tell me about "exploiting the vagaries of these sacred values" and "showing respect where we can" because it's pure self delusion and naive self aggrandizement.
Again, I'll humour you, although I find your leap here very dishonest, and carelessly argued.
What are the sacred values of Islamic fundamentalists? How uniform are these sacred values among all followers of Islam? What are our sacred values? How uniform are these values among Westerners? What out-moded claims exist on our side? On their side? How did we get where we are? How did they get where they are? Is their response arbitrary, or attached to some perceived injustice? What is this injustice? Can we correct this injustice while still maintaining our own sacred values (i.e., removing all military personnel from perceived holy lands) or not (i.e., keeping our democratic traditions and all that that entails)? Can they correct their injustice done to us while still maintaining their own sacred values, or not? Can we prioritize our own values in negotiating for peace (could we allow an Islamic republic to exist where currently a secular autocratic one exists? If that republic had popular support? If it did not? If it did but chose to regulate attire or decency? Could we accept their rejection of a value we consider sacred [one's right to dress as they choose] in the interests of accepting what they consider to be a sacred value of theirs [in this case a strict adherence to what's written in the hadiths]?)?
Can they prioritize their values in negotiating for peace (would they stop decollating Western reporters if we withdrew support for Arab leaders they consider corrupt? If the injustice they perceive that has or is being committed against their fictive kin were corrected? If we were to show regret for having committed it? If these were done with our demanding that they would not regulate dress, or behaviour, or whatever?)? With whom do you believe we would be negotiating? What percentage of any Muslim population do you believe supports terrorism? What percentage of any Muslim population do you believe actually engages in terrorism? What actions have changed Muslim opinion toward the West for the better? The worse? What amount of good will could we show toward Muslim or Arab populations before they conceive of the problem of Islamic terrorism? Before they appreciate that combating terrorism is an issue all of us should care about? Before they themselves work to combat terrorism?
These are questions that, if we're even remotely serious, we should find answers to. If it is that nothing can be gained from negotiation, how do we accomplish this militarily? What loss of human life would be unacceptable? Would a loss one life short of this be acceptable? Is it even possible, logistically (Saudi Arabia being by far and away the principal source of funding for radical Islamic madrassas, who teach the Wahabist strand of Islam, throughout the world - could we reasonably accomplish an invasion of Saudi Arabia, Iran, parts of Indonesia [Sulawesi] the Philippines and various African nations all while still maintaining a presence in Iraq and Afghanistan?)?
I'm not particularly interested in discussing logistics, it seems a discussion most obscene and frankly vicious, but surely you've considered this?
All of this is deserving of careful study (excluding the logistics aspect, which, sadly, will no doubt receive the most study). Your ignorant and careless regurgitation of the latest Fox News diatribe doesn't qualify.
So ARE you a US voter or taxpayer?
That you think this is relevant is, again, very telling. share
"Economic mobility statistics show not that it is impossible to move up in the United States, but that one is far less likely (we're dealing in probabilities here, I'm afraid) to achieve a higher level of accumulated wealth than one's parents in the United States than in nations like Sweden, or Norway, or France (horrifying, isn't it?).
And yet I have. And it bothers the hell out of you. Satisfying, isn't it?
"You seem to be labouring under the assumption that scholarship is written in a vacuum, a closed system of internal coherence. While that's true of mathematics, it is not true of other fields. Scholarship is the real world. It is, if done properly, the scientific method applied to the real world."
No sir--I left scholarship behind when I finished my Master's and went out into the real world to make a living. The "scientific method" and "human nature" and "geopolitics" are not comaptible the way you insist they should be. Scientic method is useful for determining factual truths, and human nature and geopolitics do not lend themselves to empiricism as if we were determining the atomic weight and tensile strenght of a zinc alloy.
"Do I have to live in the middle east to be able to formulate an opinion on what constitutes acceptable foreign policy decisions?
No, I've never lived in the middle east. Which is why I turn to those who have, currently do, or conduct research there: political scientists, anthropologists, historians, and others. You've unintentionally shown why scholarship can be so useful."
No, you can formulate to your heart's content, but to formulate an INFORMED opionion on the people you're suggesting we "negotiate" with, you need to know the culture first hand--they'd do to you what they did to Daniel Pearl. You don't seem to understand that Western scholarship means very little compared to the fatwahs of clerics.
You've unintentionally shown why scholarship can be so useless. They don't call academia the Ivory Tower for nothing.
"These are questions that, if we're even remotely serious, we should find answers to. If it is that nothing can be gained from negotiation, how do we accomplish this militarily?"
"In my opinion, that is the most, and often the only, meaningful way to determine truth."
Thanks for sharing. While you determine some ethereal meaning of "truth," there's a real world out there you're pretending is waiting with baited breath to hear your wisdom from on high. Paralysis by analysis gets people killed.
Get over yourself, kid.
"That you think this [US voter or taxpayer] is relevant is, again, very telling."
Yes, it's very "telling" that you're not a US taxpayer who tells me what Democrats aren't about despite my own experience, and it tells me you think you should have some stake in US elections since you're waxing so grandiloquently on a message board for "Recount." Write a few more "cheques" and perform a little more "labour" and live a few more years and maybe your Eurotrash opinion will be relevant to a US voter and taxpayer who's not impressed by your "scholarship," which is little more than sophistry with an adolescent English accent.
"Your ignorant and careless regurgitation of the latest Fox News diatribe doesn't qualify."
Funny--you lecture ME on a "straw man" and then fall back on ragging on Fox News, which I've never cited or even mentioned.
"Again, I'll humour you, although I find your leap here very dishonest, and carelessly argued."
You'll "humour" me? You "find" my "leap here very dishonest, and carelessly argued"? Then rule against me, my Lord, or give me a bad grade, and whatever else you like to do when you're copping the authority figure pose.
Strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Scientic method is useful for determining factual truths, and human nature and geopolitics do not lend themselves to empiricism as if we were determining the atomic weight and tensile strenght of a zinc alloy.
Quite right. A major difficulty, to be sure. Not an impossible task, however.
No, you can formulate to your heart's content, but to formulate an INFORMED opionion on the people you're suggesting we "negotiate" with, you need to know the culture first hand--they'd do to you what they did to Daniel Pearl. You don't seem to understand that Western scholarship means very little compared to the fatwahs of clerics.
The first part is correct. Which is why I turn to those who happen to know the area, speak with the people, and conduct research. Not very difficult to understand. The rest is, again, more mythology.
You've unintentionally shown why scholarship can be so useless. They don't call academia the Ivory Tower for nothing.
I've shown no such thing and neither have you.
Thanks for sharing. While you determine some ethereal meaning of "truth," there's a real world out there you're pretending is waiting with baited breath to hear your wisdom from on high. Paralysis by analysis gets people killed.
Get over yourself, kid.
Meaning of truth? The expression is bated breath.
Another truth, however. "Paralysis by analysis" can be very harmful. So too is action without thought which you don't seem to understand.
Yes, it's very "telling" that you're not a US taxpayer who tells me what Democrats aren't about despite my own experience, and it tells me you think you should have some stake in US elections since you're waxing so grandiloquently on a message board for "Recount." Write a few more "cheques" and perform a little more "labour" and live a few more years and maybe your Eurotrash opinion will be relevant to a US voter and taxpayer who's not impressed by your "scholarship," which is little more than sophistry with an adolescent English accent.
What I believe is actually very much in agreement with what the American public believes. Try the work of Benjamin Page (The Foreign Policy Disconnect and The Rational Public being, in this instance, the most relevant). What you believe? Not. False consensus effect. Very common.
Funny--you lecture ME on a "straw man" and then fall back on ragging on Fox News, which I've never cited or even mentioned.
You're right. Apologies.
You'll "humour" me? You "find" my "leap here very dishonest, and carelessly argued"? Then rule against me, my Lord, or give me a bad grade, and whatever else you like to do when you're copping the authority figure pose.
Have you the answers to my questions? Anything beyond mere rhetoric?
Strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Yes, a fine movie. Not relevant here.
share
"The expression is bated breath."
Yes, I know. It's called a pun. Breath that smells of bait. As in hungry sharks.
"What I believe is actually very much in agreement with what the American public believes."
So it's not false consensus if it's something YOU agree with, right? Or is it the "American public" you're speaking for that is in false consensus with you?
"Have you the answers to my questions? Anything beyond mere rhetoric?"
Your questions have been answered several times. When you're not happy with the answers, you respond with more questions and even more rhetoric.
"Which is why I turn to those who happen to know the area, speak with the people, and conduct research. Not very difficult to understand. The rest is, again, more mythology."
I know the area--I've lived there. No mythology. My experience guides me. You can cosult all the books you like--I lived it.
"Paralysis by analysis" can be very harmful. So too is action without thought which you don't seem to understand."
Much thought was given before action was taken. Blair said it best: The dangers of INACTION far outweigh the dangers of action. Blair did what had to be done despite the political cost, and given Saddam's statement to George Piro that he intended to reconstitute his WMD programs if there had been no OIF, he did the right thing. You seem to forget that Saddam & Sons had PLENTY of time to abide by all the UN resolutions they violated over 12 years, and that the reason the UN was involved was because Saddam & Sons agreed to abide by UN resolutions after the Iraqi military was thoroughly kicked out of Kuwait in 1991. Saddam did everything he could to paint a target on himself--calling for more terror attacks on the US on 9/11/02 was an invitation I'm glad President Bush accepted.
John F'n Kerry would STILL be trying to come with a plan that would pass his idiotic "global test" by quixotic efforts to build "consensus" among nations such as France and Russia, whose interests were in maintaining the status quo. Margaret Thatcher called that kind of consensus "the absence of leadership," and she was absolutely right.
It was not in the strategic interests of the USA to maintain the status quo, and UN resolutions and economic sanctions had been tried and had failed.
I don't miss him or his sons, and the millions of Iraqis who have voted in free elections since March, 2003 don't miss them either.
You're not happy with US foreign policy?
Here's what to do:
Next time you vote in a US election, pick the candidate who is indecisive and would give other nations veto power in defining US strategic interests and what should be done, not said but done, to pursue and defend them. Vote for the candidate who is conciliatory toward terrorists and who thinks our enemies could be made to understand through some clever, nuanced argument that they were wrong all along about us and that we can all just get along. Vote for the candidate who thinks diplomacy is possible with nations that broadcast that they'd like to destroy us and that the good will and charisma of his or her personality will be irresistable.
There's usually one in every election we have.
So it's not false consensus if it's something YOU agree with, right? Or is it the "American public" you're speaking for that is in false consensus with you?
People naturally assume that others share their beliefs. As it is, I've looked at the results of well conducted surveys of American opinion. Guess what? The American public is quite a bit to the left of the American political establishment. Also? Their beliefs very much accord with my own. In fact, where we diverge is over the issue of gun control. A majority of Americans favour gun control, while I do not. That's right, I find myself to the right of the American public. I hope all of this is simple enough for you to understand.
Your questions have been answered several times. When you're not happy with the answers, you respond with more questions and even more rhetoric.
You've answered only a tiny fraction of the many questions I've posed. You continue to insist that X is so, when it simply isn't. You need only look to the work of those involved in the region. Let's take Scott Atran, for example. His work is highly regarded among American policy makers. He continues to receive funding from the US Department of Defense and has briefed the National Security Council on numerous occasions, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, the U.S. State Department and the British House of Lords.
I know the area--I've lived there. No mythology. My experience guides me. You can cosult all the books you like--I lived it.
Let's try another thought experiment. We'll take an upper class individual from some unspecified Latin American country, and an impoverished peasant from the very same country. The first considers 'globalization' (of a very specific kind, in this case) beneficial, in fact, he can see it, he lives it. The second? He can see it, lives it, finds quite the opposite. Again, a problem. Something your disturbingly inane paradigm can neither answer nor reconcile. It doesn't take a genius to understand this.
One's experience, no matter how great, is always less than what can be gleaned from the collective experiences of others. Which is very much what the current scholarship provides.
Much thought was given before action was taken. Blair said it best: The dangers of INACTION far outweigh the dangers of action. Blair did what had to be done despite the political cost, and given Saddam's statement to George Piro that he intended to reconstitute his WMD programs if there had been no OIF, he did the right thing. You seem to forget that Saddam & Sons had PLENTY of time to abide by all the UN resolutions they violated over 12 years, and that the reason the UN was involved was because Saddam & Sons agreed to abide by UN resolutions after the Iraqi military was thoroughly kicked out of Kuwait in 1991. Saddam did everything he could to paint a target on himself--calling for more terror attacks on the US on 9/11/02 was an invitation I'm glad President Bush accepted.
I should have clarified. It doesn't matter how much thought is given, when that thought is defective or very poor. But my opinion is much like yours. I believe much thought was given, however, and here's where we differ, all of it having to do with issues unrelated to successfully combating terrorism, bringing 'freedom' to the Iraqis, and defending the United States and Britain against a possible Iraqi threat. Again, on this point there is much scholarship which I've taken much effort to sift through. That you have not doesn't compel me to spell it all out for you. Clearly you won't listen and you don't care about facts. You're something out of the work of Bob Altemeyer.
It was not in the strategic interests of the USA to maintain the status quo, and UN resolutions and economic sanctions had been tried and had failed.
I'm glad you mentioned the sanctions. Try the work of Hans von Sponeck. A Different Kind of War. He was there dude, he saw it. He lived it. He experienced it.
France and Russia, whose interests were in maintaining the status quo.
Quite right. The UN is not always sufficient in formulating reasonable policy. That again is not a justification for unilateral use of force. France and Russia rightly perceived that US domination of Iraq would, logically, lead to US control over Iraqi oil reserves. Their opposition wasn't out of some deep seated love for the Iraqi people, but because their economic interests were at stake. Understand that control, in this case, is very much different from simply access. The U.S. currently has no issue with access to oil. What the Bush administration most likely sought was the ability to deny rapidly modernizing China's access to petroleum resources. The U.S. has a vested interest in maintaining its position as the world's only superpower. That's not controversial and is freely admitted by the Bush administration. Of course, this should all be very much acceptable to you, for it is in the interests of the United States.
This might have escaped you, but what is often in the interests of the United States (I should say an elite minority in the United States) is also often detrimental to a great majority of the world's population. If you believe that's reasonable, fine. But you should more than accept as legitimate what opposition exists to this policy. You don't care about Iraqis, you don't care about Iranians, you don't care about most people in this world. You somehow believe an invisible line drawn in the sand hundreds of years ago is sufficient reason to value one life while not another.
Feel free to reply, though
Understandably, I most likely won't respond.
Can't say this has been very productive, but still good for
Kicks.
Only the best,
From:
Fgooshd share