Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Well, you're right that the 2-superpower model kept in check a number of regional problems, owing to the fact that one power or other other made them shut up in the interest of staying in the good graces of said superpower. But I think it's too hard to assume away the USSR's underlying problems and imagine a 1980-era USSR around today. Even though we did spend them into penury with the Cold War, it's hard to really visualize them tromping around in today's environment.

Besides, NK wasn't really under one umbrella or the other, right?

As long as Saddam was in power we could not pull our troops out of Saudi Arabia and we could not stop the sanctions. All bases in Saudi Arabia are now closed (the big problem was having them so close to Mecca and Medina). Eventually the occupation will end and then no troops and no sanctions.

But I am sure they will stil have a problem with us.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
As for whether the United States was better off, while the Soviet Union existed it was possible that the United States could be wiped off the map. Now that is not a realistic option. The Jihadists at worst may get one or two cities, but the Soviet could hit at least five hundred.

So you're saying that Krauthammer and the others are wrong when they suggest that Islamist terrorist are an existential threat to us? I agree -- good to have you on the side of sanity.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
This was a classy move. She didn't have to apologize because she didn't say it, but she apologized anyway. More politicians should follow her example.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10152006...e_haberman.htm

Yes, maybe, but when is she going to apologise for the below........


Remember when Hillary was on the Today and she unmasked the VRWC's role in promoting the downfall of her husband......

Let's go to the tape:


MATT LAUER: Let me take you and your husband out of this for a second -- Bill and Hillary aren't involved in this story: If an American president had an adulterous liaison in the White House and lied to cover it up, should the American people ask for his resignation?

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, they should certainly be concerned about it.

LAUER: Should they ask for his resignation?

CLINTON: Well, I think -- if all that were proven true, I think that would be a very serious offense. That is not going to be proven true.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Sorry, but that was a pretty stupid question.

I know you're just saying that because you could answer in less than a page.

But, seriously . . .

You set out the main reason that I think we probably are better off, long term, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union. But it did set off chains of events that have made the world a much more complex place, and I think we've handled those complexities poorly, overall. Still learning, with "experts" brought up in a bi-polar world.

S_A_M

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
[Penske macro]

Jonhson County Sun [Kansas]

"If I was a closet Democrat, I must have hidden it well, especially from myself, since I always beat up on Democrats in my columns. I have called them leftists, socialists, and every other name in the book, because I thought they were flat-out wrong.


And, for the most part, I still do. I am opposed to big government. I have little use for unions. I never liked the welfare plans. I am opposed to weak-kneed defense policies. I have always been for fiscal prudence. I think back to the policies of most Democrats, and I cringe.


So, what in the world has happened?


The Republican Party has changed, and it has changed monumentally.


You almost cannot be a victorious traditional Republican candidate with mainstream values in Johnson County or in Kansas anymore, because these candidates never get on the ballot in the general election. They lose in low turnout primaries, where the far right shows up to vote in disproportionate numbers.


To win a Republican primary, the candidate must move to the right.


What does to-the-right mean?


It means anti-public education, though claiming to support it.


It means weak support of our universities, while praising them.


It means anti-stem cell research.


It means ridiculing global warming.


It means gay bashing. Not so much gay marriage, but just bashing gays.


It means immigrant bashing. I'm talking about the viciousness.


It means putting religion in public schools. Not just prayer.


It means mocking evolution and claiming it is not science.


It means denigrating even abstinence-based sex education.


Note, I did not say it means "anti-abortion," because I do not find that position repugnant, at all. I respect that position.


But everything else adds up to priorities that have nothing to do with the Republican Party I once knew.


That's why, in the absence of so-called traditional Republican candidates, the choice comes down to right-wing Republicans or conservative Democrats.


And now you know why we have been forced to move left."

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So you're saying that Krauthammer and the others are wrong when they suggest that Islamist terrorist are an existential threat to us? I agree -- good to have you on the side of sanity.

Yes they are wrong when they say that Islamic Terrorism threatens the existence of Western Civilization. Its a battle they can never win, but they can do a lot of damage a long the way.

I see this as kind of like the hype of the AIDS crisis. Heterosexual were never as threatened as homosexuals by AIDS. But the PC community said that we are just as threatened to prompt action. Similarly, to highlight the crisis of Israel (whose very existence is threatened by these guys) they are trying convince everyone that the west's entire existence is threatened to push people into action.

If we ever do a lose a city or a significant portion of our population, then the war will be over. The US population will demand an end to the conflict by any means necessary.

If you think about it, it is much more important to the citizens of the middle east than us that the war on terror goes well for us. I don't think they understand that we live in a democracy (meaning if the people want to, they can tell the government what to do) and we have the capability of exterminating them. Once the majority of the American people lose their patience it will be really dangerous to live in a country that produces terrorists.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I know you're just saying that because you could answer in less than a page.

But, seriously . . .

You set out the main reason that I think we probably are better off, long term, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union. But it did set off chains of events that have made the world a much more complex place, and I think we've handled those complexities poorly, overall. Still learning, with "experts" brought up in a bi-polar world.

S_A_M

We were so focused on them we ignored many other problems. But proliferation was occuring during the cold war. India, Pakistan, Isreal and South Africa all pretty much gained nuclear capability during the cold war. The problem is that the problems we face are complicated.

The problem is now the middle east and Subsaharan Africa. With the demise of the Soviet Union and the discrediting of Socialism, the rest of the world is growing economically and will eventually turn into responsible multiparty democracies. Of coures there are some exceptions on every continent: Burma, North Korea, Bylorussia, Cuba, and maybe Venezuela. But I think these countrys eventually will have to change their tune as the countrys surrounding them become so much more wealthy.

The big problem is the Middle East and Subsaharn Africa. Most of these countries are not consistently growing economically and will therefore remain a problem. Petrodollars make some of these countrys look like they are growing but they are not. They are not growing the huge middle class that is so necessary for staiblity and mulitparty democracies.

The kicker is how do we get these countries to set up governments that implement sound economic policies? That is the problem the world faces.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
They lose in low turnout primaries, where the far right shows up to vote in disproportionate numbers.

That is the crux of the problem for both partys. As long as moderates can't be bothered to be involved in politics this problem will continue.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes they are wrong when they say that Islamic Terrorism threatens the existence of Western Civilization. Its a battle they can never win, but they can do a lot of damage a long the way.

We can do even more damage to ourselves. They can't force us to abandon key principles of our legal system like habeas corpus or to torture people -- those wounds are self-inflicted.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes they are wrong when they say that Islamic Terrorism threatens the existence of Western Civilization. Its a battle they can never win, but they can do a lot of damage a long the way.

Its okay. The demos will just reason with them.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
We can do even more damage to ourselves. They can't force us to abandon key principles of our legal system like habeas corpus or to torture people -- those wounds are self-inflicted.

if we didn't torture people before 9/11 how come we know how to now?

[SlaveNoMore]

Hank Chinaski
if we didn't torture people before 9/11 how come we know how to now?

We practiced torture (i.e. waterboarding) on all of our own guys first.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't recall that Clinton deserves credit for that, but you could persuade me.

Bush went in to Haiti.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by nononono
Bush went in to Haiti.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't the first.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm pretty sure he wasn't the first.

But as between him and Clinton, yes, he was.