Still Hating America.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
More than anything I am sad. I know you don't hate the Jews, but why are you willing to condemn them to a second holocaust without some fight?

The only way I can see stopping them would be a full scale invasion. Right now we have sympathy among the student and reform movements in Iran. If we invade that will all be lost. I just don't see invasion as an alternative. Do you?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Charles Krauthammer is stealing Spanky's ideas?

Of course you post to a blog (quite a sur prise for Ty) instead of the actual article. The Blog statement, of course, pretends that the article says something that it doesn't and accuses Krauthammer of exercising "bad faith". The blogger in question can't just argue the article on the merits, but has to question the ethics of the person making it. Typical B.S. personal attack. You may not like his politics, but no reasonable person can really argue that Krauthammer isn't a smart guy who believes in what he says.

Here is the original:

The War And the Words

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, February 9, 2007; Page A19

National Intelligence Estimates are not supposed to be amusing. And the latest NIE on the situation in Iraq was uniformly grim. But the document's determined effort to split the difference on the use of the phrase "civil war" did verge on the comical. One can only imagine the interagency wrangling that produced the classic bureaucratic compromise: "The Intelligence Community judges that the term 'civil war' does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict," but "nonetheless, the term 'civil war' accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict."

In other words: yes, no, maybe. Multiple civil strife, but way too messy to rank with the classics such as America in the 1860s or Spain in the 1930s.


I don't deny that this is a fair application of "civil war" to the current situation. What I note with dismay, however, is how important -- and absurdly irrelevant -- the application of certain loaded words to the situation has become.

What is striking is how much of the debate in Washington about Iraq has to do not with the war but with the words. Who owns them, who deploys them, who uses them as a bludgeon. NBC's announcement in November that it would henceforth use the term civil war -- a statement far more political than analytical, invoking the same fake authority with which the networks regally "declare" election winners (e.g., Florida to Al Gore, Nov. 7, 2000) -- set the tone of definitional self-importance.

Words. We had weeks of debates in the Senate about Iraq. They eventually went nowhere, being shut down (temporarily) by partisan procedural disputes. But they were going nowhere anyway. The debates were not about real fighting in a real place. They were about how the various senators would position themselves in relation to that real fighting in that real place. At issue? With what tone and nuance and addenda to express disapproval of a troop surge that the president was going to order anyway.

When it came to doing something serious about the surge, the Senate ducked. It unanimously (81-0) approved sending Gen. David H. Petraeus to Baghdad to do the surge -- precisely what a majority of the senators said they did not want done.

If you really oppose the surge, how can you not oppose the appointment of the man whose very mission is to carry it out? Yet not one senator did so. Instead, they spent days fine-tuning the wording of a nonbinding -- i.e., entirely toothless -- expression of disapproval.

A serious legislative body would not be arguing over degrees of disapproval anyway, but about the elements of three or four alternative plans that might actually change our course in Iraq, something they all say they desire. But instead of making a contribution to thinking through how the war should be either prosecuted or liquidated, they negotiate language that provides precisely the amount of distancing a senator might need as political insulation should the surge either succeed or fail.

Words. The Democrats are all in favor of "redeployment" and pretend that this is an alternative plan. But the word redeployment is meaningless. It simply means changing the position of our soldiers and, implicitly, changing their mission. Unless you're saying where you're redeploying to, and with what mission, you've said nothing. It's a statement of opposition, yet another expression of disapproval of the current strategy -- much like an empty, nonbinding congressional resolution -- until you say whether you want to redeploy to Kansas or Kurdistan.

Words. Consider "surge." It carries an air of energy, aggression and even hope. That, in fact, is a fairly good reflection of Petraeus's view of it -- not just more troops but a change in the rules of engagement, with more latitude to fight, less political interference by the Iraqi government and a much tougher attitude toward foreign, especially Iranian, agents in Iraq.

The opposition prefers "escalation," as featured, for example, in the anti-surge commercial that aired in certain markets during the Super Bowl. The main reason for using escalation, of course, is that it is a Vietnam word. And the more Vietnam words you can use in discussing Iraq, the more you've won the debate without having to make an argument.

The problem with this battle over words is that it is entirely irrelevant to what is happening in Iraq. There will be real troops on real missions regardless of what label they are given. The country is engaged in a serious debate about exactly what strategy to pursue to either prosecute the war or withdraw in an orderly fashion. The Senate might consider putting such a debate on its agenda.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You really don't read KOS or the DU, do you?

Only the influential Ds are required to read that high concept stuff, for the sheeple, they know the hypnotic koolaid that they put out in the MSM will suffice to sway their little minds.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
The only way I can see stopping them would be a full scale invasion. Right now we have sympathy among the student and reform movements in Iran. If we invade that will all be lost. I just don't see invasion as an alternative. Do you?

Yes. a strategic invasion. By bunker busting bombs. and/or stratgeic nukes, as necessary.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
KKK using immigration to boost recruiting The anti-immigration wave has always felt racist to me, so it doesn't surprise me in the least that the racists are using it to further their cause. Good.

I for one would like to see them dismantle the border. Or at least, let anyone Mexican that can find a job here, be allowed to stay here. But I understand the anti immigration point of view. They feel that if too many Mexicans come here that they will turn parts of America into Mexico. I believe the US is superior because of our economic and political system not because of our culture so I don't see Mexican culture, or any other culture as a threat. But I understand the fear of the US turning into Mexico. Mexico's political and economic systems are a total mess and I don't want those systems, or anything like those systems, here either. That is a rational fear that is not racist. It is just a view that confuses culture with politics and economics.

They are also worried about the US becoming bilingual. The US is strongly advantaged by the fact that we are monolingual and that we speak the same language that is the world's language. As long as we keep our education system in English I don't see this is a problem, but I can see their concern.

The argument that granting amnesty awards law breakers, and encourages law breakers, is a strong one. I don't like the law anyway, but I can see their point of view.

To just label the anti-immigration block with a racist brush I think just gives them ammunition. If you unfairly accuse people of things it just makes their antipathy stronger. According to my friends in congress the pro wall, and sealing the border, mail outweigh the President's position nineteen to one. The only reason Congress is sympathetic to the immigrants now is because they got in on the war. If the sole issue in the election was immigration it would have been a Republican landslide.

If we are going to turn this anti-immigration sentiment around in this country painting them all with a racist brush isn't going to help. You keep doing that and we are going to end up with a wall. At least that is my opinion.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Israel and Iran wouldn't hit each other, just the people in between?

Don't you think they could deliver missiles into eachothers territory? These missiles could be nucler tipped, could they not?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Yes. a strategic invasion. By bunker busting bombs. and/or stratgeic nukes, as necessary.

Without "boots on the ground" I don't see us thoroughly dismantling their system. Even with nukes and bunker busting bombs. We would have to send soldiers to scour the entire country, and I just don't see that happeneing.

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
I for one would like to see them dismantle the border. Or at least, let anyone Mexican that can find a job here, be allowed to stay here. But I understand the anti immigration point of view. They feel that if too many Mexicans come here that they will turn parts of America into Mexico. I believe the US is superior because of our economic and political system not because of our culture so I don't see Mexican culture, or any other culture as a threat. But I understand the fear of the US turning into Mexico. Mexico's political and economic systems are a total mess and I don't want those systems, or anything like those systems, here either. That is a rational fear that is not racist. It is just a view that confuses culture with politics and economics.

They are also worried about the US becoming bilingual. The US is strongly advantaged by the fact that we are monolingual and that we speak the same language that is the world's language. As long as we keep our education system in English I don't see this is a problem, but I can see their concern.

The argument that granting amnesty awards law breakers, and encourages law breakers, is a strong one. I don't like the law anyway, but I can see their point of view.

To just label the anti-immigration block with a racist brush I think just gives them ammunition. If you unfairly accuse people of things it just makes their antipathy stronger. According to my friends in congress the pro wall, and sealing the border, mail outweigh the President's position nineteen to one. The only reason Congress is sympathetic to the immigrants now is because they got in on the war. If the sole issue in the election was immigration it would have been a Republican landslide.

If we are going to turn this anti-immigration sentiment around in this country painting them all with a racist brush isn't going to help. You keep doing that and we are going to end up with a wall. At least that is my opinion.

You forgot to mention that they don't pay any friggin taxes.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Define "many-if not most"? Is this more of your mod fraud? Hank, is this what you were talking about??!?!??

I'm sorry -- I didn't realize that a majority of the board favors nuking Iran.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Of course you post to a blog (quite a sur prise for Ty) instead of the actual article.

When you clicked on that link, you found a blog post about the Krauthammer piece. You may have noticed that the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh words of the blog post ("sagely observes Charles Krauthammer") were blue, unlike the rest of the text in the blog post, which was black. That blue text was a link, and clicking on it would have brought you directly to Krauthammer's piece. Most people who have used the interwebs have figured out how these sorts of hypertext links work. I apologize for assuming that you understood such things, and thereby putting you to the effort of reposting something that I was providing a link to.

The Blog statement, of course, pretends that the article says something that it doesn't and accuses Krauthammer of exercising "bad faith". The blogger in question can't just argue the article on the merits, but has to question the ethics of the person making it. Typical B.S. personal attack. You may not like his politics, but no reasonable person can really argue that Krauthammer isn't a smart guy who believes in what he says.

You've had this argument with everyone on this board. As near as I can remember, everyone else thought that the Krauthammer/Spanky suggestion that anyone opposing the surge also should oppose Petraeus's nomination was, well, stupid. Since Krauthammer didn't pick up on your insight that the whole surge was, in fact, Petraeus's idea, it all makes even less sense coming from him.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You forgot to mention that they don't pay any friggin taxes.

If they are paid over the table, they probably overpay taxes -- because they aren't going to file for a refund, and they likely won't ever make Social Security claims (even if they tried, if a fake tax ID is used, it'd be hard to substantiate entitlement to the benefits).

Under the table (i.e., no withholding) payments aren't limited to illegal immigrants. People born here get under the table payments.

So WTF are you talking about?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Israel and Iran wouldn't hit each other, just the people in between?


[pssst, Sebby] Iran is Persian, not Arab. It's this sort of "they are all the same" thinking that led Bush to believe that there wouldn't be any post-Saddam strife in Iraq. [/pssst, Sebby]

Pssst. I know Iran is Persian. I misspoke. That's shocking, isn't it? Substitute "Radical Islam" for Arab. Damnit... I wrote misspoke when I meant "miswrote it." I'm not sure miswrote is a word. If you think real hard you can find three smug responses to this post.

But, your "they're all the same" comment is well taken. That is an important distinction in regard to our Iraq policy, but in the context of Radical Islam v. Israel, I'm not sure its relevant.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Unlike most of the liberals here I am a culturally competent anti-biased sensitively compassionate communitarian of the planet Earth, and as such I feel the need to point out that Iraniis are not Arabs. they are Persians. So in your posit, the second Holocaust would be a Persian one.

I point this out because my Iranii friends bristle at the notion that they are Arabs. I am not sure why......it may be the dresses the dudes in Arabia wear. No offence.

Et tu? Whatever.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You forgot to mention that they don't pay any friggin taxes.

How do you think you get their labor so cheap?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
You've had this argument with everyone on this board. As near as I can remember, everyone else thought that the Krauthammer/Spanky suggestion that anyone opposing the surge also should oppose Petraeus's nomination was, well, stupid.

I didn't.

I thought it was further evidence that the Dems in the Senate like to talk tough, but when push comes to shove, they are a bunch of spineless bastards.