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

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
So the administration, so famous for steadfastly pursuing its goals in the face of any and all opposition, floated a list of six justifications, then said OK and caved when the NYT whined that a) there had to be a single causus belli, and b) it was unclear which one of the six was the cb?

The administration then said to the media, Pick whichever one you want, pick the easiest one to market, that's fine with us?

The media then picked WMDs because it couldn't understand or market the ideas that SH was a ruthless killer, or that he supported terrorists, or that he was a destabilizing influence in the ME ?

Is that how it went ?

They didn't cave, they just narrowed the debate. Look at the resolutions passed in the UN - WMD was just one of the reasons for war. Another was failure to abide by the terms of the cease fire in 1991.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda

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.

Oh right - I forgot how hard the media held Clinton to task when he said the troops would be home by Xmas.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Oh right - I forgot how hard the media held Clinton to task when he said the troops would be home by Xmas.

I cannot for the life of me figure out a) how this is responsive; or b) how it refutes what I said about the media. And then I thought, I'm wasting time with you. Come back when you're not so far off your game. You can be, and usually are, better than this.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
And then I thought, I'm wasting time with you. Come back when you're not so far off your game.

I think Democrats have come up with a new debate strategy.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think Democrats have come up with a new debate strategy.

Perhaps you can read club's post and explain it to me. Until then, I'll stick with my first thought, which is that I don't do strawmen.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
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.

If our troops weren't there Saddam Hussein would still be torturing and killing innocent people. If we pulled out our troops the insurgents would still be killing Iraqis. They would continue to kill police, blow up wedding partys etc until Iraq became an Islamic state.

Originally posted by taxwonk 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.

The insurgents are killing many more Iraqis than they are American soliders. In addition, they are specifically targeting innocent people. We need to kill the insurgents to protect the innocent Iraqis.

Originally posted by taxwonk 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.
.

Boy your understanding of the situation is really screwed up. This is not a war, this is an occupation with an insurgency. If they put down their arms no one would kill them. In addition, the government that exists was put there by the Iraqis. After December 12 there will be no question that they will have a democratically elected government. So the insurgents are people that are trying to overthrow a democratically elected government. If they just joined the democratic process no one would have to kill anyone.

Originally posted by taxwonk 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?"
.

You make it sound like the entire Iraqi population is part of the insurgency. In fact the overwhelming majority are involved in the Democratic process. The insurgency is just a very small population of the Iraqi population.

Originally posted by taxwonk 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.

We toppled an illegitimate government. Saddam was just a thug in control of a country. We took him out and now have installed a democratically elected government. Killing to get rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do. Killing to set up a democratic regime is the right thing to do, and defending that regime is the right thing to do.

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

I don't mind a free debate. What I mind is when people put their own personal interests above that of the nation. Toppling Saddam was the moral thing to do (do I need to explain why?), installing a democratically elected government was the right thingh to do, leaving immediately after toppling Saddam without stabilizing the country would have been the wrong thing to do, leaving now when the government is not ready to handle the insurgency would be the wrong thing to do. Up to this point, I think it is clear we have done the morally right thing. I don't think anyone can debate that.

I think there is some argument that what we have done may not have been in the US strategic interest. I disagree with that argument but can respect it.

But when someone says what we are doing is immoral, I don't know under what version of morality that can be argued. When someone says we can't win, they can't possibly know that, so why say it. When people say what we are doing is immoral, or say we can't win, but those statements are not true and can only serve to help the enemy. They have a right to say it but I can be disgusted with them when they do.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by 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

Where is this coming from?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by 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.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Captain 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 there is more of a chance with a Sunni successionist movement. The Kurds and Shiites seem to agree on most everything. They both want a federated state and don't seem to conflict much. It is the Sunnis that are the problem and they are a small minority.

Originally posted by Captain 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.

The problem is the Sunnis want their cake and eat it to. The want a centralized government and they want control. The reality is if they want control then the country will have to divide. The Sunnis and Kurds don't have a problem with that. The Sunnis do. They are upset with the constitution because it is not central enough. They also want control, but in a unifed democrat government they will not have control. They are just slowly have to come to terms with the fact that they do not have the divine right to run Iraq.

Originally posted by Captain 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.

The problem is everyone wants us to fail. The other Arab states don't want a functioning demcracy because that will put on pressure for them to form a democracy. The rest of the world will not help because they don't want to be proven wrong in their opposition to the war.

Originally posted by Captain 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.

It is my understanding that we have trained many police units and are training more.

Originally posted by Captain 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.

I think that we should stay three more years and that is exactly what is going to happen. Until Bush leaves office (or the insurgency dies) we are going to be there. In three years we will be able to train the Iraqi military so they can handle the insurgency. Bush will pull out only when he thinks it is a good idea. We might as well argue what strategies the Giants will use next season. We have just about the same influence. And three years is plenty of time to get the Iraqis up to speed. What is going to happen is going to happen. We and the Senate and the Congress can debate it all we want, but in the end it is Bush's call I think we all know how he is going to handle it. The issue is what will his replacement do, but by then we will have trained anough Iraqis to pull out. So it is a moot point.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Captain
I suspect most of the men and women in the field have a much better idea of how the war is going that any civilian on Capital Hill. They don't need to be fed rosy scenarios - they won't believe them anyways.

But it would help with their morale if they knew we were going to finish the job and were behind them.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
For the same reasons your answer offends me: The evidence, should you ever care to search it out (you won't be offered it by your media) and should you ever look at it dispassionately, suggests VERY strongly that we're winning now.

But that's agin' the party line, right? 'Cuz Bush made it happen, and he's evil. So, your mission now, should you decide to accept it, is to fight this success with every fibre of your being.

Fuck. If your side can take him seriously now, there's no dialogue at all any more. Ya'all are beyond belief. I can take back my very temperate "there's no treason" post from last week. There is treason. There are traitors.

I don't think what I think because Dean says so. I think it because of what I read and hear about Iraq.

I wish that you were correct, that things in Iraq were going swimmingly.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by bilmore
You are confused.

All of these liberal types are very sure that, come the revolution, they simply have to yell "Cut!", and the action will stop, and they can quickly run aside and not be hurt.

It's all unreal.

If Lenin got power, it would simply make network connections a little bit more complicated. Kulaks would eventually get back their cable.

Hitler back? Well, the jews in the posting group would simply have to be a bit . . . you know . . . more circumspect.

It's all a fucking joke to them. There are no bad guys, just undiverse systems.

Weren't the "fellow travelers" all scheduled to die?

Wouldn't it be funny, were we ever to reach that point?

I know you explained this later to Taxwonk and he now understands it, but I am a little slower. I still don't get what you were trying to say here. The sarcasm is going way over my head.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think there is more of a chance with a Sunni successionist movement. The Kurds and Shiites seem to agree on most everything. They both want a federated state and don't seem to conflict much. It is the Sunnis that are the problem and they are a small minority.

The Kurds and Shiites will get along as long as it is in their interests to do so. We need a longer view if Iraq is to succeed. For instance, what will be the effect of the Kurdish desire for an independent Kurdistan? That is far more important to them than to be part of Iraq, and I think everyone here knows that makes the Turks nervous. What will be the US position on an independent Kurdistan? Don't tell me the Turks will behave because they want into the EU; while that is true, the rest of the EU is growing increasingly disenchanted with the idea of Turkey in the EU and is likely to insist on a second-class status for Turkey. If Turkey agrees, will they have enough of a stake in EU membership to toe the line, especially in light of the increasing influence within Turkey of non-secular elements?

What will be the effect of Iran on the Shiites of Iraq? I don't have any read on that at all, but my gut says it won't be good for us. Between Iraq and a sympathetic Iran, what will be the amount of oil reserves controlled by those two? Will the Shiites of Iraq turn their backs on Iran to maintain the union with the Sunnis and Kurds imposed by a whim of the British after WWI ? Will the Kurds do the same to their brothers in Turkey?

The problem is the Sunnis want their cake and eat it to. The want a centralized government and they want control. The reality is if they want control then the country will have to divide. The Sunnis and Kurds don't have a problem with that. The Sunnis do. They are upset with the constitution because it is not central enough. They also want control, but in a unifed democrat government they will not have control. They are just slowly have to come to terms with the fact that they do not have the divine right to run Iraq.

I think they want to survive. You have way more faith in the restraint of the Shiites and the Kurds than I do. Paybacks are a bitch, and nowhere more so than that little corner of the world.

The problem is everyone wants us to fail. The other Arab states don't want a functioning demcracy because that will put on pressure for them to form a democracy. The rest of the world will not help because they don't want to be proven wrong in their opposition to the war.

Whine, whine, whine. bush broke Iraq, now we have to fix it. Let's stop feeling sorry for ourselves and start putting a plan together. A real plan, not this "Plan for Victory" gelatinous vomit that is code for "we don't have a fucking clue what to do next".

I think that we should stay three more years and that is exactly what is going to happen. Until Bush leaves office (or the insurgency dies) we are going to be there. In three years we will be able to train the Iraqi military so they can handle the insurgency. Bush will pull out only when he thinks it is a good idea. We might as well argue what strategies the Giants will use next season. We have just about the same influence. And three years is plenty of time to get the Iraqis up to speed. What is going to happen is going to happen. We and the Senate and the Congress can debate it all we want, but in the end it is Bush's call I think we all know how he is going to handle it. The issue is what will his replacement do, but by then we will have trained anough Iraqis to pull out. So it is a moot point.

I have no confidence bush is going to handle it. The Iraqis apparently don't either.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
There is a difference between regulating business and regulating markets.

Nice try. I'll take those paragraphs as a tacit admission that you had a brain seizure.

Unless you are just implementing business rules like "you can't intentional lie". There is nothing the government can do. But trying to decide that the market is not giving the people what they want or need is when government gets out of line.

Setting aside media markets for a moment, do you accept the proposition that there are some things (say, primary education, or national defense) that a "free" market will not produce in sufficient quantities, such that some sort of government action is appropriate?

Your knee jerk reaction is to have government do something about the problem.

I was just trying to have a conversation, and forgot that tossing out new ideas might be strange and threatening to you Republicans. Sorry.

There are plenty of news organizations, and plenty of serious reporting but it is not what the people want. These organizations are giving the people what they want. We may not like it but it is not our place to tell the American public what sort of news they should watch or read.

If a free market doesn't produce adequate investment in the national defense, do you conclude that the market is giving people what they want, and that it isn't our place to tell the American people how much national defense they need? Of course not.

This would be a waste of money and effort. It would just be forcing taxpayers to pay for the type of news shows that we want. I don't think the government should be in the business of producing news. I don't really like the government being in any sort of business.

If Congress adopted this, it wouldn't be forcing taxpayers to do anything. It would be citizens deciding to come together to use government to ensure that they get the news they need.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda

I have no confidence bush is going to handle it.

That doesn't matter. You guys control nothing and won't be trusted to control anything again. You're like when Ty was 3rd string on the b-ball team and he'd dog the starters after a loss. You can criticize all you want but Coach (the american public) ain't giving you any more court time.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
The point is that there are soldiers in the field trying to do their job and a statement like this from one of the leaders of the two main political parties does not help.

Unless he's actually right. Or unless the process of having this conversation is a fundamental part of what living in a democracy is actually about, in which we should be thankful that we have a system of government in which these differences of opinion are aired, rather than fearful of such differences.[/QUOTE]

We are coming up to an election. Couldn't he keep his mouth shut until after the election? Can't these naysayers just shut up for a couple of weeks to see if we can pull of a good election and then start their belly aching?

The one in about a year? We're not supposed to criticize the ruling party's policies for half the time? I missed that part of the framers' grand design.

They can't wait until after the election because they want us to fail.
They are more concerned about Bush looking bad than they are about the future of the United States or Iraq.

Or maybe they just think that Bush's policies have been a colossal fuck-up and are wasting American lives while endangering our national security.