A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
"Degrees". Remember how I included that word?

Degrees of grey on the scale with Bush at one end and luck at the other?

Am I saying here that the entire set of changes and happenings are directly to the credit of Bush? That there's a direct correlation? That everything good that's happening is his doings alone?

Nope. I'm saying that what he has accomplished has, obviously, directly changed Iraq and Afghanistan, and the tone that's now being set across the ME and Europe and maybe the world seems to be fostering a movement towards things that we like.

I believe that media coverage has a "tone" but that continents do not. I also believe that many of the people frothing at the mouth about how great things are can't distinguish between the two.

For your argument to hold any water, there has to be some causal relationship between our invasions and elections in those countries, and good things happening elsewhere. I'm still waiting for the reporting from Lebanon that suggests this.

Remember a month or so ago, me saying that I was optimistic that Iraq elections would actually be held, successfully, and that that event would presage a sea change throughout places that needed a sea change? Well, I'm a whole lot more optimistic now than I was then. At that time, you indicated that you would like to believe that that would happen, but were still pessimistic. Have you seen any reason to change that? Can you see your way to give Bush ANY of the credit for what's going on? If so, I sure haven't seen it. So, if someone here is holding an absolute position, I doubt it's me.

I understand the notion that a functioning Iraqi democracy would act as an example for the region, putting pressure on Arab regimes to reform. But that's not what's happened -- which is not to say that it can't. We held an election in Iraq. The Kurds and Shiites haven't even formed a government yet. So where's the example of functioning democracy? And while our media plays up the "democracy" angle and plays down the insurgency, to much of the Arab world, the prism through which Iraq is seen is one of imperialism -- Iraqis resisting foreigners.

Also, you guys keep blurring the lines between a Lebanese movement to evict the Syrians, and a Lebanese movement for democracy. The two are different things. In point of fact, the Lebanese political system is rigged to diminish the influence of the largest ethnic group, the Shiites, but since the Shiites are represented by Hezbollah and aligned with Syrian, it's hard to find conservatives acknowledging this awkward fact, let alone complaining about it. Your pro-democracy protesters in Beirut are largely Maronites and Druzes who benefit from an electoral system that gives them disproportionate clout.

P.S.. "Satan"? Choke that shotgun, son.

What's that supposed to mean?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What's that supposed to mean?

To "choke a shotgun" narrows the pattern.

You were posting about some belief in Satan, to me. Now, really . . .

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Wrong about what?

And don't start suggesting that conservatives knew the Soviet Union was about to collapse. They had no idea, and were scaring people -- doubtless in good faith -- about the Soviet military.

We've had this debate before - I don't have the energy to rehash it. Let's just agree that you're wrong.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
We've had this debate before - I don't have the energy to rehash it. Let's just agree that you're wrong.

I will agree this should be the next board motto.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
To "choke a shotgun" narrows the pattern.

You were posting about some belief in Satan, to me. Now, really . . .

You suggested two causes at work in the world: good and chance. I was just tossing evil into the mix. Bush would want it that way.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
We've had this debate before - I don't have the energy to rehash it. Let's just agree that you're wrong.

I think the debate we had before was whether or not Reagan's policies caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. Even if you get your special National Review merit badge for your position on that one, you can't possibly think that conservatives saw it coming. Everybody missed it until it happened.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If Rich Lowry found a couple words in them to quote, they must be fully on board with his entire argument. Sure, that follows.

I've actually read the some of the articles. The general tone is that Bush should get some credit, as much as they had to admit it.

As you may know, there is much debate going on right now about the extent to which Bush can take credit for what's happening in Lebanon. I've already posted here about what I think. I respect many of the people with whom I disagree, but only because they seem to have thought about the issue and can try to explain what we've done that might be influencing events there. I don't think the fact that Iraq held elections influenced Lebanon much at all, and I haven't seen any reporting from Lebanon suggesting otherwise. Instead, most of the people asserting that the good things happening in Lebanon are the direct result of our Iraq policy don't speak Arabic or French, don't seem to know much about Lebanon, and probably couldn't have told you much about the country before Newsweek et al. started running photos of pretty Lebanese chicks. IMHO, Ukraine and Arabic TV were more significant influences.

What Bush has done is set a general tone that gives aid and comfort to those struggling for freedom. Go ask any of the Eastern Bloc dissidents from the 80s what that type of unwavering support from the most powerful nation in the world did for them. Bush actually has done more, in that he has backed rhetoric with action in two 3rd world muslim states. Couple the two together, and those struggling for freedom have a reasonable basis to believe they may be successful.

Equating Lebanon and Iraq requires that you ignore that most of the Arab world disapproves of our occupation of Iraq in the same way that they disapprove of Syria's occupation of Lebanon.

Are we also "occupying" Japan, South Korea, and Western Europe?

Yes, as a matter of fact Democrats did stand up to communism in Central America and around the world. The military build-up in the 1980s started under Carter, for example. Obviously there were things that Reagan did with which Democrats disagreed, but you are off in La La Land if you want to pretend that Democrats didn't give a shit about the Cold War.

Easy tough guy. I am suggesting that they disputed the means not the end.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think the debate we had before was whether or not Reagan's policies caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. Even if you get your special National Review merit badge for your position on that one, you can't possibly think that conservatives saw it coming. Everybody missed it until it happened.

Ty, you must be very good in court. My guess is that you paint your opponent's argument as extreme as possible without risking sanctions, and then when your opponent says "Your honor my position is actually not that extreme" you claim victory.

Did they pick the date? Of course not. But did they believe that the build up would likely have a collapsing effect? Absolutely. Go read Reagan's handwritten writings from the 60, 70s and 80s. It's there in black and white.

You people are the only ones that didn't see it coming.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Don't bring that shit here, 'cause Ironweed or someone will do a Ben Wallace on it.

Look if you need to tie something to Ironweed's macho prowness, maybe consider a spinning class analogy. "Ironweed won't have to tighten up the resistance knob to fight up that arument!" Something like that- cause pretty boy ain't got nothing in common with Ben wallace.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Look if you need to tie something to Ironweed's macho prowness, maybe consider a spinning class analogy. "Ironweed won't have to tighten up the resistance knob to fight up that arument!" Something like that- cause pretty boy ain't got nothing in common with Ben wallace.

They're both 6'9".

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I've actually read the some of the articles. The general tone is that Bush should get some credit, as much as they had to admit it.

What Bush has done is set a general tone that gives aid and comfort to those struggling for freedom.

Both you and bilmore with the "tone" meme. I will take this as confirmation that it's hard to explain what Bush has done for aspiring democrats in other countries, besides make happy noises. (I suspect that Bush's "tone" is perceived differently in foreign countries, but don't let that trouble you.)

Go ask any of the Eastern Bloc dissidents from the 80s what that type of unwavering support from the most powerful nation in the world did for them.

It was so much more complicated than that. The Soviet Union's decision to sign the Helsinki Accord re human rights in the mid-70s opened the door. Why not ask dissidents from the 1970s? Because that might give some credit to Carter and Democrats?

Bush actually has done more, in that he has backed rhetoric with action in two 3rd world muslim states. Couple the two together, and those struggling for freedom have a reasonable basis to believe they may be successful.

Because the U.S. might invade their country and impose a better government on them? If a radio station is giving away house, does that give you a reasonable basis to believe you'll be able to save the money to buy one? So is the radio station responsible for setting a tone favoring home ownership?

Are we also "occupying" Japan, South Korea, and Western Europe?

No. Those countries have legitimate governments that, for the most part, accept and appreciate our presence. The situation in Iraq is more than a little bit different.

Easy tough guy. I am suggesting that they disputed the means not the end.

As we lefties are with Bush's crusade for democracy. No one here frowns on democracy.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think the debate we had before was whether or not Reagan's policies caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. Even if you get your special National Review merit badge for your position on that one, you can't possibly think that conservatives saw it coming. Everybody missed it until it happened.

I had a history professor who took the view that it was inevitable, and would likely happen in our lifetimes, as the countries of Eastern Europe would not stand being repressed for more than a couple of generations and that, once they started to break loose, the shit would hit the fan. (That's not quite the way he put it.) This was in 1983 or 1984.

Pity, for him, that he didn't establish a line on this in Vegas. He'd be living on his private island now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Ty, you must be very good in court. My guess is that you paint your opponent's argument as extreme as possible without risking sanctions, and then when your opponent says "Your honor my position is actually not that extreme" you claim victory.

Did they pick the date? Of course not. But did they believe that the build up would likely have a collapsing effect? Absolutely. Go read Reagan's handwritten writings from the 60, 70s and 80s. It's there in black and white.

You people are the only ones that didn't see it coming.

I won't dispute that Reagan's handwritten notes reveal him to be a latter-day Nostradamus. It's too bad Reagan didn't tell other people at the time. As it was, most conservatives were worried about the threat posed by the Soviet Union, and were taken completely by surprise when Communism collapsed.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Both you and bilmore with the "tone" meme. I will take this as confirmation that it's hard to explain what Bush has done for aspiring democrats in other countries, besides make happy noises.

I think that's why Fiske's incredibly liberal, anti-Bush paper still puts it in the form of a question:

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I had a history professor who took the view that it was inevitable, and would likely happen in our lifetimes, as the countries of Eastern Europe would not stand being repressed for more than a couple of generations and that, once they started to break loose, the shit would hit the fan.

Hungary, 1956.
Czechoslovakia, 1968.

It's not like the concept of freedom was unknown behind the Iron Curtain. I wouldn't mind reading a good history of East Germany at the end which explains why they lost the will to keep repressing people. I'm sure it had something to do with Reagan's resoluteness and moral example.