A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
2) As far as the Dari joining Iran (and Kabul joining Iran), like I said before, that is what I would expect but I have never heard of a "greater persia" movement. There are calls for a united pashtunistan "to be rid of their Persian and Punjabi overlords" but never anything about persians. So I am not sure what would happen to the Persian portion of Afghanistan.

You may find it interesting sometime to get a couple of maps to compare - one of those who are linguistically Persian and those who are religiously Shi'a. If you compare the two and think about what is important to the people occupying these greatly overlapping lands, I think you'll discover the reason you don't hear much about greater Persia.

Culturally, I'd identify people in the area less by language (among the elites, certainly, virtually everyone is multi-lingual) and more by religion or even by their national epic poetry - the ever moving line between those who read the Shahnama and those who read the Mahabharata having more to do with national consciousness than their sub-ethnic group per se.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Finally, we agree on something. This would indeed be bad form.



This form, though, just doesn't seem so bad. I can't take a DC meet and greet seriously. I have great difficulty imagining either Bush or Web pledging to honor and obey anyone.

On another note, nononononono, Hank appears to either think you are not a conservative or to have you on ignore so he doesn't realize you are posting here. Just another sign that you are more perceptive than he.

Hank thinks I am a boy. I'm not sure we can get too far past that.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Who are the Berkeley-think posters on this board?

Just about all the Democrats here buy into the sanctity of conceptions like "economic equality" and that the Govt is a more benevolent than harmful entity. If you think we should fiddle with markets and engage in social engineering or that we can never have enough regulations, you're tilting in the direction of Berkeley.

A nice litmus test for whether you lean toward Berkely is if you think we ought to hit Big Oil with a windfall tax. If you think that's valid, moral, or at all the product of a coherent understanding of Big Oil's business cycles, you're not just in Berkeley... you're in the DisneyLand version of it.*

But you're right, "Berkeley-think" was hyperbole. Most of the people here aren't in that realm (though some I suspect are secretly so, but don't want to embarrass themselves... so they cite to Berkeley-think blogs as soft proxies).


*Which does not exist, but you get the point.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Just about all the Democrats here buy into the sanctity of conceptions like "economic equality" and that the Govt is a more benevolent than harmful entity. If you think we should fiddle with markets and engage in social engineering or that we can never have enough regulations, you're tilting in the direction of Berkeley.

A nice litmus test for whether you lean toward Berkely is if you think we ought to hit Big Oil with a windfall tax. If you think that's valid, moral, or at all the product of a coherent understanding of Big Oil's business cycles, you're not just in Berkeley... you're in the DisneyLand version of it.*

But you're right, "Berkeley-think" was hyperbole. Most of the people here aren't in that realm (though some I suspect are secretly so, but don't want to embarrass themselves... so they cite to Berkeley-think blogs as soft proxies).


*Which does not exist, but you get the point.

I read the label as another way of avoiding dealing with substantive issues by imagining that the Democratic Party is just a bunch of McGovernites stuck in the 70s. It's fun to argue against McGovern, Berkeley, Big Government, Taxes and the Welfare State; it's a lot less fun to deal with the Democratic Party as it is or with the arguments people make.

Much maligned Barney Frank, repeatedly cited here are reason to be wary of Democratic control of the house, has just indicated that one of his big initiatives is going to be lift the cap on the size of loans that can be held by Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac. This will reflect the increase in property values, particularly on the coasts. Anyone want to argue that this is a bad thing?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

What Democrats Learned from listening to Generals and Intelligences Agencies before the Iraq invasions.

So, why couldn't Bush & Company listed to the same Generals and the same intelligence reports, and come to a similar conclusion? What was it about the blinders they wore that said, we can ignore this stuff?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
What Democrats Learned from listening to Generals and Intelligences Agencies before the Iraq invasions.

So, why couldn't Bush & Company listed to the same Generals and the same intelligence reports, and come to a similar conclusion? What was it about the blinders they wore that said, we can ignore this stuff?

Because they were lying. The better question is why the Democrats, armed with the info, voted for war.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
All true, but which of the relevant 'Stans reasonably resembles a democracy right now? Wouldn't most of these ethinc groups be trading the devil they know (and who owes them some loyalty) for the devil about whom they only hear reports?

Yes - as I said, the stans have dictators now so they will prevent this from happening. What will need to change is that the will of the people be realized in these areas, through democracy, or one of the dictators of the stans will realize that using these nationalistic sentiments will be a good way to extend their borders. However, I can't imagine them doing that while the US is there.

As far as the people "trading the devil the know", you are assumning people act rationally. There is nothing rational about nationalism. They will push for a "great blankistan" whether it is in their interest or not.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Absolutes are dangerous, but some of your posts are pretty outrageous -- on substance and/or argument style. (e.g. you have essentially just said you'll pay no mind to the classified Rumsfeld memo until you personally see it.)

Why is that so outrageous? After Ty told me where it was I read it. Did you think the NYT summarized it correctly. I sure as hell didn't. The memo I read seemed to have no relation to what was being discussed.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
To try to avoid a yet another pages-long debate that some people might not want to read, I PM'd you about the substance of this. I'll just point out that I did state my agreement with your basic point once or (possibly) twice over on the FB.


Other than that, I'm not really interested in a long discussion over who struck John and why -- particularly given what you and your lover Hank have already said about me.

Sorry - I have forgot - what did I say about you?

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You're not particularly conservative.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
How could you live with yourself otherwise?

Hard to argue with that.

[Replaced_Texan]

A friend of mine was born in Iraq but grew up in Lebanon. She came to my family's annual Christmas party this weekend, and she brought her 83 year old mother with her.

Her mother had left Baghdad about a month ago in what sounded like an awfully scary trip (an 11 hour car ride to Syria, then to Lebanon), and she's sworn that she's not going back for at least ten years. What's interesting is that her mother had come to visit her children the US and Australia last year and insisted on going back to Iraq after she'd seen everyone despite protests from the rest of the family. She didn't think that things were bad enough to warrant permanently leaving her home last year, but she thinks that it's not a country that she could go back to this year.

The mother is a wonderful woman. She and my 91 year old aunt started swapping stories with abandon, and I think they've agreed to start hanging out. When my freind said she'd start talking to INS (or whatever the hell it's called now) about staying here, her mother said not to worry, she has two green cards, one signed by Henry Kissinger.

Anyhow, I thought it was rather sad that the die hards are starting to give up on Iraq. This woman is fiercely independent and loves Iraq. She's not given up on the country before, but for now, she can't see living there.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The better question is why the Democrats, armed with the info, voted for war.

That article is about all the Democrats who didn't. But it's also about how the press didn't report what they were saying at the time, which may explain your confusion.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Spanky should like that one.

S_A_M

If you mean if it is just preaching to the choir, reconfirming my already preconceived notions, and making me more obnoxious and bullheaded on the subject: then yes - you are right.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
There is nothing rational about nationalism.

I read a book a while back called Imagined Communities, by Benedict Anderson, about the rise and spread of nationalism. Part of his argument is that through the printing press and newspapers, people came to see themselves as parts of a larger communities than they had before. Obviously, ethnic bonds can do something of the same thing. This might suggest why nationalism is less of a strong force in some of the areas you've been talking about.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
On both of those positions, you are mischaracterizing what I've said, doubtless because it's fun to argue about the topics. You and I agree more on free trade than many people do, but this board accentuates our disagreements. When we agree on stuff, there's no reason to dwell on it, unless someone else is disagreeing.

No truer words were ever spoken.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I live in a world where it's possible that both Webb and Bush were out of line. It's not either/or.

I do to and I agree. But the problem is you live in a world where Bush is never right. The problem is your world is preventing you from seeing what was happening in the real world. On this one Webb was wrong and Bush was right.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop This episode is an impressive Rohrshach (sp?) test. Opinions about it are all over the map, on the board and on the many blogs. My take is that there was nothing wrong with (a) Webb skipping the receiving line, (b) Bush asking Webb about his son, or (c) Webb's response, but that things went off the rails with (d) Bush's "that's not what I asked you" line, leading Webb (e) to be rude in his reply. Nonono thinks the rudeness started with (a). My wife thinks it started with (b), and that that's a question you never asked the family of veterans -- you ask them quesions they can answer, like "when did you talk to him last." Other people here think it went south with (c).

Since you were criticizing my reliance on the NYT in another post, I'll point out that the usually reliable George Will omitted essential facts when he recounted the conversation. If you compare his version to the other published reports, you'll see that he made Bush look better and Webb look worse.

On the whole, Peggy Noonan has my proxy.

Nothing wrong with Webb not going through the receiving line. But I have seen many liberals critisize Webb and defend Bush, but not the other way around. Am I wrong?

I think Bush's response has been disputed. But in any case, if you admit Webb's response was off base, what is wrong with Bush saying "that is not what I asked"? That was just a statement of fact. Webb's answer to his question was not responsive. Bush just pointed it out. Rude would have been, that is not what I asked, prick".

The problem here is that people just don't want to give Bush. It hurts them to much to do so. So if they critisize Webb they have to critisize Bush. In other words, partisan blinders.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
1. Webb had every right to do what he did. Having your child in combat gives you the right to tell the Commender in Chief who put him there as part of a doomed, half-assed mission to fuck off.

2. George Will is missing substance for style here. Lergely because on substance, his argument's a huge loser. Bad conservatoves do this... They harrumph about theother side's manners or poor upbringing and behavior when they don't have anything to say about the merits of a thing. It's a variation of the dumbass Left's calling Bush out for lack of military servoce whenever he suggests sending troops anywhere.

3. The real problem with Webb is he's a fucking whore and a fool. He runs as a quasi-Republican, but now in office he's blathering about "economic inequality" (aka, Capitalism). Like all his shithead Lefty friends, he of course has no actually plan to implement Socialism, just saber rattling about protectionism. If hekeeps drinking Howard Dean and John Edwards' Entitlement Junkie Kool Aid, he'll find his stint a short one. He doesn't represent Ohio or Pennsylvania. Virginia still has people who actually work for a living in it.

Why did you choose to critisize Will's article and not mine? Don't you love me anymore?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That article is about all the Democrats who didn't. But it's also about how the press didn't report what they were saying at the time, which may explain your confusion.

Meh. The majority of them still voted for it. They may as well have written the article about Lincoln Chaffee.

Is there any question about why the press didn't? Option A - You get to report a war. Option B - You get to report diplomatic wranglings. The press acts in self interest because its harder and harder to make money in the news business.