The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Captain]

Originally posted by Spanky
Mr. Spanky? As I said before undeserved respect.

I have always said is OK to critisize the war strategy, even the decision to go to war, but to say we don't have a chance is undermining our troops.

A bit of hyperbole never hurt anyone but the hyperbolist. Just give him rope.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by Spanky
For some reason you think that morals have to be simple. Like all killing is wrong. Why do you think that? It is more intricate than that and I don't understand why anyone would think it has to be simple.

Relativist bastard. Stay away from my moral compass.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I disagree that the MSM was so powerful, or the bush administration was so inept at communications, that the message was dictated by the MSM's inability to grasp more than a single cb. It's hard to believe they were calling the tune and the bush administration had to dance to it, especially if you posit that they were too dumb to figure out how to sell newspapers on the idea that SH was a ruthless sociopathic mass murderer who had the capability and intent to do us harm too. It also flies in the face of the well-documented fact that the neocons had great concerns about Iraq leading up to the war, and also bush, cheney and rumsfeld's - I'll be charitable here - great interest in Iraq even before 9/11.

I don't chalk it up to ineptness as much as, if you give a bunch of reasons, and one in particular seems to garner lots of agreement, you end up talking about that one. Remember, there was widespread agreement at that time that the WMD potential was worrisome enough to justify this. Kerry even said so.

This incidentally illustrates what I believe to be an error in viewing the MSM as liberal or conservative. They are neither - that gives them too much credit for actually having an ideology and sticking with it. They are, plain and simple, whores to whoever is in power at that moment. They will crawl across 20 miles of hot broken glass to lick the tire tracks of the trucks carrying the laundry of someone who will give them a WH inside tip, no matter how small or insignificant, be it Democrat or Republican.

Whole 'nuther debate, for another day, I guess.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
Relativist bastard. Stay away from my moral compass.

Heh. Compass.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Captain
Wow. I'm afraid it is time for me to talk to Dr. Spanks. He has much better reading comprehension. Please feel free to continue whatever it is you are doing.

Interesting technique.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
When did I say this? I never said this. It is Ok to kill insurgents to stop them from killing our soliders and innocent poeple. It would be better to arrest them, but if we can't arrest them, or we can't arrest them without allied casualties we should kill them. Is there anyone on this board that think it is not morally OK to kill insurgents?

It would be a moral imperative to kill an insurgent if you had a gun and you saw an insurgent running towards a school strapped to the nines with bombs. If you didn't shoot to stop him that would be immoral.

Why do you find those concepts so heinous. Why are my moral positions so offensive. You say you are a moral relativst - well then. What is wrong with the terrorist attacks on 9-11? If Al Queada thought they were moral, then who are you to critisize them for what they did.

I believe the intentional killing of innocents that serves no purpose other than to instill terror is a universal moral wrong. As a relativist you can't say that. I have a moral compass and you don't.

You're putting the cart before the horse here. You say it's okay to kill insurgents in order to keep them from killing our troops. If we didn't have troops there, then we wouldn't need to kill the insurgents to protect the troops.

You also say that it's okay to kill insurgents to keep them from killing innocent people. But the insurgents are killing people because we attacked them. They didn't invade the US.

I agree that it's wrong to kill innocents. Especially when the killing is for no other purpose than to instill terror. But the insurgents aren't killing just to instill terror. They are killing because people are trying to kill them. That's what a war is. Both sides have to fight, otherwise it's just a massacre.

The question for me is, if they are prepared to fight until the last man standing, is it morally right to stay there until we kill them all? If it is, then how does that differ from a massacre, other than their getting a few good licks in before they die? If it isn't morally right to kill them all, then at what point do we say "enough?"

And by the way, how does what you have said in this post differ from "it's okay to kill them because they don't look at the situation the same way I do?" You can't say you're killing in self-defense, because we're the aggressors. You can't say that we're killing in defense of others, because we toppled Saddam and created the Iraqi Army and Police force that is trying to kill the insurgents, so, again, that killing is the result of our aggression.

Like you said, morality isn't simple. That's why you have to allow free debate.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by bilmore
I don't chalk it up to ineptness as much as, if you give a bunch of reasons, and one in particular seems to garner lots of agreement, you end up talking about that one. Remember, there was widespread agreement at that time that the WMD potential was worrisome enough to justify this.

You can recast it as you will. You are still arguing the administration allowed someone else to frame the debate, something the bush administration did not do in the debate on tax cuts, reforming Social Security (esp. privatization), the Kyoto Accord, the need to drill in ANWR, the torture debate, etc., etc., etc.

Kerry even said so.

You have an unhealthy obsession with that man. Soon you will be spraying Photoshops of Kerry all over this board, and no one wants that. Seek help while there's still time.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Soon you will be spraying Photoshops of Kerry all over this board, and no one wants that. Seek help while there's still time.

I could never fill those shoes. I leave that to the absent master.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
You have an unhealthy obsession with that man. Soon you will be spraying Photoshops of Kerry all over this board, and no one wants that. Seek help while there's still time.

He figures that it's payback for all of the snide remarks he heard about Alf Landon at the DFL/Grange meetings in 1937.

[LessinSF]

Which Party will win the Presidency in 2008?
Republicans -115
Democrats -115

Will former Pittsburgh Steeler Lynn Swann announce his intention to run for Governor of Pennsylvania? Swann must publicly announce his intention to run for Governor of PA for yes wagers to be graded as a win.
Yes -140
No EVEN

Will the United States relinquish its control of the Internet to the United Nations by December 31, 2006?
Yes +400

Will Tom DeLay be found guilty on money laundering charges?
Yes -130
No -110

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Bob
He figures that it's payback for all of the snide remarks he heard about Alf Landon at the DFL/Grange meetings in 1937.

Roosevelt lied!

Crops died!

[Captain]

Does anyone have any interest in talking about what to do in Iraq, without resort to issues of why we are in Iraq or what we should or shouldn't be talking about?

My view, still in formation, is this: disengagement in the short term is not an option, because we have set in motion a chain of events that heavily depends on our presence for a modicum of stability.

However, there are several dangers to continued engagement on the same terms, including most importantly being drawn into a potential civil war. The worst case scenario for me in Iraq is a three way war between Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds with shifting alliances and us being perceived as taking sides. I believe that there is a significant danger that the new, ostensibly democratic regime will have many pressures on it to become more autocratic as it tries to fend off civil war.

I think we should be considering encouraging a plebiscite on separation with the idea being that Iraqis would make their own decision, and would either decide to stay together, steeling thunder from those advocating civil war, or decide to part, eliminating the necessity for a war to force a parting. Right now, the Sunnis will continue to have emotional appeal for the notion that they have been shut out and need to force their voice through military means if necessary.

I also think we should be looking for increased internationalization even if it means compromising control over what may go on militarily, politically and economically in the country - even if moving towards a fully Iraqi police force is a long shot, replacing some of our troops with forces from elsewhere in the region (Pakistan? Egypt? Saudi Arabia?) is essential, and needs to be a first level diplomatic goal. The fact that other countries are pulling troops rather than replacing ours is not a good sign, and we need a renewed push in this area.

Finally, I'm not sure traditional military units are appropriate for this action in its current form; Iraq needs internal police structures more than military structures, and one of te great ongoing tragedies in developing countries historically has been the use of military rather than police to maintain order. I think we should be reviewing creative solutions for replacing traditional military units with police volunteers.

And I would judge our political leaders a year from now on success based on whether they are able to diversify the forces in Iraq, bringing home significant traditional military forces and shifting the burden in Iraq to other countries and to other types of forces. Not because I want our troops home (though I do), but because I believe this disengagement will lead to more long term stability. I would also judge them based on whether or not there is one or more governments in Iraq that are stable and have legitimacy, and on whether any remaining terrorist attacks are focused on us as occupiers or on other ethnic groups as virtually inevitable ethnic strife.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Roosevelt lied!

Crops died!

The SSA is an inefficient expenditure of blood and treasure!

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by bilmore
Roosevelt lied!

Crops died!

I was thinking more along the lines of "even Alf Landon agreed back then that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Of course, he also said [snicker] that the FDIC was creeping Bolshivism."

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by bilmore
Roosevelt lied!

Crops died!

Wasn't it you who accused Roosevelt of being in league with the radical Hollywood left led by Cecil B. DeMille and financed secretly by Meyer Lansky? I think I read that in my high school history textbook, but admittedly that was some time ago.