A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[bilmore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Consider it an effort at being funny that failed more grandly than my usual efforts fail.

Chalk it up to the fact that I just don't do sports well. It's like a funny sight gag to a blind guy. Thud.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
when is Iraq "fixed?" I say when it is handling it's own security and we can pull out. how does it get there? it's people join the police and nat'l guard. The bigger bombings and most gruesome kidnapping/murders are of recruits for these. What does that tell you Ty? THERE ARE LOTS OF RECRUITS- and they are targetted- AND STILL MORE JOIN. The people want to get there.

now the people have had a chance to pick what the government is. how can that not make more want to join the security and also narc out the insurgents?

Did you know the South Vietnamese Army was almost all drafted?

I can't figure out what you think you're arguing with me about. Many people in Iraq want this to work. We agree on that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm baffled. They voted. Presumably, the winning candidates will be seated, absent fraud. Isn't that democracy? I don't think I called it peace, did I?

It sure sounds democratic, and there's nothing wrong with it, but we are a long way from having established a democracy.

This must be my afternoon for bafflement. How this relates to what I said escapes me. You said, the Arab world doesn't appear to be clamoring for democracy.

That's not what I said, but it's what you keep hearing.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Cool. Are we invading Saudi Arabia next?

What a stupid response. I expect more from you (but not much)

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't think that most Arab countries are totalitarian, as oppressive and unfree as they may be. And no -- I think the reason is that notwithstanding the vote that took place on Sunday, what Iraq looks like now is not what most people want their countries to look like.

You wouldn't describe Syria, Lebannon and Iran as totatlitarian?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You wouldn't describe Syria, Lebannon and Iran as totatlitarian?

I think it's hard to imagine a totalitarian regime in a non-industrialized society, although China during the Cultural Revolution might fit the bill. In all three of those countries -- and particularly Lebanon -- I don't think the government has extended its control over the rest of society to a degree sufficient to call it totalitarian. Iran has a close relationship between religious and government authorities. But Iran also has considerable divisions right now within its government. I don't know of any reason to call Lebanon totalitarian. Syria's government is ruthless and strong, but I've never understood that it has co-opted other institutions, etc.

Perhaps I'm seeing a distinction between totalitarian regimes and other forms of dictatorships that you're not seeing?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Perhaps I'm seeing a distinction between totalitarian regimes and other forms of dictatorships that you're not seeing?

Remember, you're talking to a described libertarian. Could be that to club, the Clinton Years were totalitarian.

[sgtclub]

[i]Perhaps I'm seeing a distinction between totalitarian regimes and other forms of dictatorships that you're not seeing?

Perhaps, but in the context of what we were discussin, I think any distinction is without a practical difference.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Remember, you're talking to a described libertarian. Could be that to club, the Clinton Years were totalitarian.

Only 1992-1994.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Perhaps, but in the context of what we were discussin, I think any distinction is without a practical difference.

In the context of what we were discussing, both you and bilmore are missing the point. My point was that the way we have presided over Iraq since we took over, and the mess we have made of it, discredits and undermines our promotion of democracy. The question is not whether our motives are pure, but how our efforts are seen and appreciated by others in the Middle East. Abu Ghraib, to take just one example, was a disaster for our public diplomacy efforts. The fact that the insurgency has only been gathering strength is also very, very unhelpful. My point was that others look at Iraq and, quite reasonably, would not want to live there. Given a choice between living under such conditions with a right to vote, and living in an orderly, non-democratic country, many people would choose the latter. (Look at Singapore. But I digress.) Moreover, the fucked-up state of the country threatens the entire project. For example, Kurds overwhelmingly want independence for Kurdistan rather than to remain a part of Iraq. If the centre cannot hold, Kurdish secession is increasingly possibly. But this would certainly convince many nationalists elsewhere that the price of democracy is too high. (Evidently, the price of recognizing Kurdish aspirations is too high for us even now, notwithstanding our ostensible commitment to democracy.) Or, if people associated the introduction of democracy with the inability of the central government to stop the insurgency, they may turn to a strongman. They might even elect someone who then eliminates democracy. It's happened before.

eta:
IMHO, notwithstanding the vote on Sunday, we're losing Iraq. In the future, the historians will ask whether the project ever could have worked out, or whether it was doomed from the start. (And the bilmores of the world will blame the MSM for failing to give enough support.) I tend to think the latter, but I'm not sure.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Talk about a united front:

• Not a single Senate Democrat will support President Bush’s proposal to divert a portion of the Social Security payroll tax to personal investment accounts, Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Tuesday.
  If he is right, Bush’s plan will be dead on arrival in the Senate, where a supermajority of 60 votes will be needed to overcome a filibuster by opponents. Republicans have 55 seats.
  ...
  “We want to make sure that the American people understand that we’re not for benefit cuts and we’re not for privatization,” Reid said. “There’s no crisis in Social Security.”
  ...
  Reid said he had private commitments from all 44 Senate Democrats that they would not support diverting payroll tax revenues into private accounts, the key facet of Bush’s plan. The Democratic staff on the Senate Finance Committee has come to the same conclusion, based on polling Democratic members and their staffs.

CQ Today, via TPM

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Talk about a united front:

Good. Stupid idea.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Talk about a united front:

• Not a single Senate Democrat will support President Bush’s proposal to divert a portion of the Social Security payroll tax to personal investment accounts, Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Tuesday.
  If he is right, Bush’s plan will be dead on arrival in the Senate, where a supermajority of 60 votes will be needed to overcome a filibuster by opponents. Republicans have 55 seats.
  ...
  “We want to make sure that the American people understand that we’re not for benefit cuts and we’re not for privatization,” Reid said. “There’s no crisis in Social Security.”
  ...
  Reid said he had private commitments from all 44 Senate Democrats that they would not support diverting payroll tax revenues into private accounts, the key facet of Bush’s plan. The Democratic staff on the Senate Finance Committee has come to the same conclusion, based on polling Democratic members and their staffs.

CQ Today, via TPM

The fillibuster appears to be the only new idea coming out of the "party of change" these days.

Originally posted by bilmore
Do you mean as a normative statement, or "in this case"? I mean, I think our entry into WWII was a case where the ends did justify the means. We killed a whole helluva lot of people - but was that an evil thing? Or, would NOT participating have been the evil? How far do you carry non-violence? Simply watch the kid get beaten up across the street, or cross over and use violence to save him? Sometimes, the ends DO justify the means.

I read once that on internet-type chatting boards, the first person to mention Hitler loses the argument. You haven't done that, but do you really think there is an analogy to be drawn between WWII and Operation Iraqi Freedom To Get Your Ass Blown Off?

There are good reasons to fight wars, like when the survival of your society is threatened, e.g., by weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a madman. There are other reasons to fight wars that are not so good, like oil pipelines in Afghanistan (hi Hank!). There are also good and bad ways to treat prisoners, good and bad ways to go about the reconstruction of a country devastated by war, etc.

As for the kid across the street, I'd feel pretty shitty if someone told me "hey, see that kid over there? He's gonna beat up my little brother at 3:00. Let's kick his ass now," and we did, and it turned out . . . well, you get the picture.

We'll have to ask the Iraqis that question, won't we? So far, from the polling I've seen, they think we're still in that acceptable range.

No, you can answer it yourself using your own moral compass and core values. All I know is a lot of innocent people over there got killed in my name because we were sold a bill of goods about the reasons we had to go in guns blazing. It's nice that they're having an election, but that doesn't make everything that preceded it suddenly ok. If it did, Penske would have stopped bitching about the Clinton years after W was sworn in.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ironweed
As for the kid across the street, I'd feel pretty shitty if someone told me "hey, see that kid over there? He's gonna beat up my little brother at 3:00. Let's kick his ass now," and we did, and it turned out . . . well, you get the picture.

Everybody thought the guy had the weapons. The UN did, the French the Germans, Clinton, Kerry, everyone. all bush said was "we can't let him- I understand why clinton let him but we can't anymore." That the world was all wrong ain't Bush's fault.

If it did, Penske would have stopped bitching about the Clinton years after W was sworn in.

I think this goes with PBS aspect of this forum. Ratings don't matter. You can post what you want. It's like if Chevy Chase worked here. he'd still be doing Ford impersionations.