Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Dave
Have you been in a Wal-Mart lately? China owns us already and it's only going to get worse.

Dude, (I just learned this word again tonight - sorry), we own China. Stop buying, and see what happens. It's our choice, not theirs.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop There's a lot of human misery in Haiti --- should we embark on nation building there, too?

Yes.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Ty has my chit on this one. (Psst. Ty. Who's Larry Davis?)

Him.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Huh? Help a brother out. I can't tell if I should go to bed mad or not.

Of course not. If this isn't fun and challenging, it's . . . well . . . no fun.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Dave
Have you been in a Wal-Mart lately? China owns us already and it's only going to get worse.

So does this mean if you buy something from someone, they own you? It is not like we couldn't manufacturer those products here if we wanted to. We could. It would just cost alot more for consumers to buy those products.

The American standard of living is high because we buy goods produced in third world countries made by people living in poverty. But without our buying their goods, they would be even poorer. It doesn't mean that they own us, though.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Him.

Oh. Sorry, Larry. I thought he was talking about a real guy. No offense.

As for you, Bilmore, we'll just pretend we're married, i.e., I'll assume the worst and withhold "intimacy" while maintaining cordial, if chilly, relations. PM me when you're ready for the makeup sex.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I'll assume the worst and withhold "intimacy" while maintaining cordial, if chilly, relations.

So, no change? I just want to be clear.

(eta) I'll be out late tomorrow night, dear.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
There's a lot of human misery in Haiti --- should we embark on nation building there, too? Conservatives usually say "no."

The decision to invade Iraq was mulitfactoral. It was not just because of the WMD, which is why not finding the WMDs doesn't mean anything. It was not just because of the human suffering in Iraq, which is why your Haiti analogy sucks air.

Another reason to invade Iraq was that Iraq funded terrorist activities, including Palestinian and other Islamic terrorist groups, which made Iraq a destabilizing force in the Middle East. Another reason to invade Iraq was because if a democracy is successfully installed, this will help to accelerate positive change in the Middle East and eventually help to stabilize the region, both politically and economically. And a stable Middle East is in the US's best interest.

Now invading Syria and installing a democracy might have similar positive effects on the Middle East. But Syria would not be the cakewalk that Iraq was. The people of Syria don't hate their ruling regime the way SH was hated.

All these factors, as well as others, made Iraq, and not Haiti, the right country to invade and to effectuate regime change.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
It was not just because of the human suffering in Iraq, which is why your Haiti analogy sucks air.

I, and many others, disagree.

If we see regions controlled by obviously bad people, where the populace is degraded, controlled, killed, and beaten down, I think that we have a duty, or at least a calling, to go and help them.

If you walk past a street corner and see a large man beating a small child, do you walk by and ignore it, saying "I hate violence, and so I will not be violent"?

No.

You become violent to the extent needed to impose your own moral system.

Because the day we give up our ability to judge, based upon our own moral system, is the day we abdicate our own brains.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
I, and many others, disagree.

If we see regions controlled by obviously bad people, where the populace is degraded, controlled, killed, and beaten down, I think that we have a duty, or at least a calling, to go and help them.

If you walk past a street corner and see a large man beating a small child, do you walk by and ignore it, saying "I hate violence, and so I will not be violent"?

No.

You become violent to the extent needed to impose your own moral system.

Because the day we give up our ability to judge, based upon our own moral system, is the day we abdicate our own brains.

You are preaching to the choir. I agree with the moral obligation. However, that was not the only reason that the US invaded Iraq. It was only one of the reasons. Perhaps it should have been the only reason, but it wasn't the only reson. That was my point.

Ty's point is if it is all about moral obligation, why not Haiti? My point is, because in the case of Iraq, it wasn't all about moral obligation.

Having said that, I do think it is the US's moral obligation to spread democracy throughout the world. I just don't think that can be done all at once. The smart way to do it is to pick those places first that will not only be the easiest but also serve other US goals. The former because, well that is just a smart way to allocate your resources, and the latter because by furthering our political interests, it makes it easier to go onto the next one. Moreover, not everyone in the US agrees with this and you have to sell it to them by saying it furthers US interests.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I only vaguely recall the Kerrey Vietnam thing and was trying to characterize the GOP pundit's efforts to make Kerry eat it, not Kerrey's actions themselves. I have no ill will toward Kerrey, as I have never had a gun pointed at me and generally think that longhairs like me shouldn't blame individuals who are put into impossible situations like that.

So you were just using a variation of the Chewbacca defense? Well played!

[andViolins]

have both recently said (while out stumping) that the U.S. should provide more money to the Palestinian Authority. I think that Kerry said the P.A. should be strengthened so that it would be stronger than Hamas and Dean said something along the lines of giving the P.A. "enough money" so that the palestinians would give up the right of return.

Today, the palestinians, with their uncanny ability to do something fucking stupid whenever there is a small glimmer of hope (the prisoner swap), blew up yet another bus in Jerusalem (killing 10, wounding 50+). What I found rather depressing was this paragraph from the Ha'aretz article about today's bombing:

"The Fatah-related Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack. Palestinian sources named the bomber as Ali Yusuf Jaara, a 24-year-old Palestinian policeman from Bethlehem.

Palestinian security officials said later Thursday that the bomber was a member of the Palestinian police, from the West Bank city of Bethlehem.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/388486.html

Great. Will the additional funds that Kerry and Dean are suggesting be used to help new "policemen" in the PA get the brainwashing, um training, that they need to carry out more attacks against Israeli civilians? More money to the PA is not the answer.

aV

[Hank Chinaski]

George W. Bush rigged the 2000 election so that gun owners could steal from The French.

http://www.buttafly.com/bush/index.php

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Whoever it was, Ty?, Bilmore?, who suggested that Dean sounded like he was speaking into a mike with the sound level maladjusted evidently was right.

Dianne Sawyer, or someone, on ABC news, put together video without the direct audio feed from Dean's mike. Putting aside issues of where those mikes were located (in the crowd, presumably), it became clear that, to the crowd, the cheering completely drowned out Dean's yelling. ABC is not a Fox network, though, so who knows what sort of audio chicanery they engaged in to provide this appearance.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

P.S. Club -- When you say that the current deficit (i.e. between 4% about 5% of GDP if the CBO is correct, is "just over' those of the Clinton years -- you'd best specify the years. You can't be talking about the three(?) years of surplus.]

He was using the blended rate over the term, I think. I want to say 3.7%-4.1%, but its been a few days.