Waiting for Fitzgerald

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by bilmore
Tell me why the admin would worry about keeping troop levels as low as possible if not for the purely political reason of not wanting to give the D's more ammo. Tell me why it would argue with its own generals, if not because it knew that the more troops it sent, the louder the D's would object, and the more chance that the right course of action would become politically unacceptable. I imagine that, left with no opposition, Bush would have sent way more people. He'd have no real reason not to.

You want to stare at your cake as you digest it. Can't do that.

As pointed out before me, this is the most preposterous attempt to turn something into the other party's fault I have ever read. Penske will probably adopt it as his latest babyjesus battle cry, it is so outlandish.

The Rs have control of every branch of government and it is somehow the decision of the Ds to send too few troops to fight W's war? Were you able it type it in without bursting out laughing? I need to know in order to have an accurate read on the magnitude of your bullshit quotient.

I tend to agree with Gatti's articulated reasons. A finite number of troops (and getting smaller and more stretched by the week), and fear of retribution in the next election from the voting public as a result of the ever-ballooning "fiscal conservative" federal budget.

It's the Ds' fault. Oh, how I laughed. Good times.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
The new D line that Bush didn't put enough troops in Iraq. Wonder why Bush didn't put more troops into the fight? Because the D's would have had an effin' fit if he had.

Then he really does deserve to be impeached.

S_A_M

P.S. The bigger problem is more like we didn't have enough to send in much more in the way of ground forces without denuding Korea and leaving the rest of the world largely bare as well. With the Iraqi commitment as it stands, it would take everything we have to fight one other medium-sized commitment.

That's why more allies with more troops would have been a huge help. Wasn't going to happen this time, though.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
No. But that wasn't your original example.

The examples are interchangeable. They are they to make the same point. Sometimes killing innocent people is necessary. Liking killing German civilians to get rid of Hitler, or killing innocent American soliders to get rid of Hitler.

Originally posted by taxwonk
In your original example, which concerned Iraq, I don't think there is much difference between Saddam killing his citizens to maintain power and us killing thousands of innocent Iraqis to overthrow him.

There is a massive difference.

Let me ask you this. Do you think there was a difference between Germany killing its own citizens and us killing innocent Germans to overthrow Hitler? The people are still dead.

How is that different than Saddam Hussein and Iraq?

Originally posted by taxwonk
The killing of Iraqi civilians may be an unfortunate but supportable evil. But they're just as dead either way. And Saddam is gone, but we're still killing Iraqis, which suggests to me that they aren't all that thrilled we're there.

You are assuming that the insurgency has popular support. I don't think it does. I think the majority of the people hate the insurgents in the Sunni areas. And in the Shiite areas they are almost overwhelmingly hated and in the Kurdish areas they have no support.

Saddam killed at least three hundred thousand of his own citizens through direct means, and possibly millions more throught the draining of the swamps.

Originally posted by taxwonk
I don't really think that you can blame that entirely on moral relativists. In the first place, we can't afford to be the world's policemen. In the second place, the fact that we generally choose to act only when it also suits our economic or geopolitical interests belies the notion that what has kept us from acting to stop genocide is people saying we can't shove western values down peoples' throats.

The argument that we can't afford to be the worlds policeman is an argument I understand. I disagree with it, because I think it is selfish, but it is a practical argument, and my position may be naive.

When you add the people that only think we should act in our own interests to the people that don't think we should shove our values down other peoples throats the result is we stand by when there is genocide. You get Rwanda. I respect the argument that we should only serve our interest more because it is less hypocritical. I can't respect the "we should not impose our values" argument because I find that people are trying to use morality to argue for us to do something that is immoral. They are trying to say it is the right thing to let such evil thrive. I find that line of reasoning abhorrent.

Originally posted by taxwonk
Call me cynical, but where have we been throughout the last several decades when various tribes in Africa have been engaging in widespread genocide? We've been either ignoring it, or sitting on the sidelines generally decrying it. But I haven't seen a Republican groundswell in favor of marching from Khartoum to Pretoria, spreading democracy and peace all along the path.

Most Republicans are not Neocons like me. Neocons supported Clinton in Kosovo. Many Republicans didn't. George Will is not a NeoCon and he complained endlessly about Clintons bombing of Serbia. Which, by the way, was another example of where we killed innocent civilians to accomplish the right end.

Clinton's act was courageous because he ignored the "we can't impose our values on the balkan crowd", and the "balkans have always been a mess that can't be fixed and it is naive to do so crowd", and the "it is not in our stragic interest crowd" and the pacifist crowd and he went in and did the right thing.

He said to himself, if not us who? and if not now when? Althought the Serbs did not appreciate the bombing, it was the right thing to do.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
As pointed out before me, blah blah.........blah........blah...........blah.........blah

It is considered polite to simply post a "2" when all you're doing is agreeing with some other simpleton's post.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I find the smillie, and the quoted material offensive. What if my child saw the smillie? Would he think it acceptable to comment like that? Is there any way they could be replaced by a link?

Since you quoted it, not anymore.

I, too, find the quoted material offensive.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Alternative One: Those Meanies Boxer and Kennedy

And Soros, and the NYT, and Rather, and PBS, and Michael Moore, and The Ghost of Wellstone, and . . . . Hey, it was a close election. These things count.

Alternative Two: Sending more troops would require deeper sacrifices by the American people, which -- separate and apart from what Barbara and Ted might say, may actually be unpopular with regular Americans. Inconsistent with the Administration's message of getting on with our lives and buying that new Hummer while we're at it.

And yet we're paying for bridges and roads and medicare drugs and NCLB and free immigration and the resultant bennies and . . . tons of unneeded shyte on bush's watch. There's more than enough to thrash out to pay the marginal costs of more troops.

Alternative Three: We don't HAVE many more troops to send. See voluminous articles about the Army stretched to its limit and experts worried about the National Guard being essentially broken because of its heavy use.

Actually, we do. As shown during the Katrina hysteria, we've only called up about - what? - 15%-20% of the available reserves? We've only deployed a minority of the actives? There's plenty more out there, plus you seemingly discount the ability to boost pay and bennies and draw more in. Plus, a draft.

Alternative Four: Rumsfeld has toyed with a new approach to our armed forces. Something about "transforming." Even though it may well make sense in an overall approach, Rumsfeld might have wanted to, you know, TRY the approach in Iraq. Lean and mean. Mobile units, less armor. Fewer troops stationed in Iraq, not more, because that kinda crap was sooooooo WWII thinking. If a general or two argued about it, well Rumsfeld's no wallflower.

Remember one of Rummy's motivations for this? A larger force is politically unpopular, and so he wanted to be able to do more - to get more and better results - with fewer opportunities for political dissent and hysteria, which translates into fewer troops and costs.

I'm thinking it's less number 1, and a bit of 2 and 3, and a good ol' second helping of 4. In your enthusiastic embrace of #1, I'm disappointed in the lack of faith you place in GWB's fortitude in facing down pussified Democrats in Doing What's Right For Our Troops.

I'll stick with, primarily #1.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Okay, but since when have you become a champion of Taxwonk's right to threaten to kill the President?

I know he doesn't believe it, but I still love Wonk. Platonically.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
At times, I look at the world and I almost see the logic of your call to empire. But then I consider the fact that it is this imperial drive that has led to the collapse of every great society before our own. I think about the fact that, if we start ignoring a system of treaties and international laws, the only place Americans will be relatively safe is wherever they can rely upon our troops to control things. I remember Richelieu's warning that power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The world is a bad place sometimes. Evil exists, and it always will. We can't even eradicate it at home on the micro level. How can you possibly expect that we will eliminate it globally on a macro level?

I can't buy into the newspeak concept that war is peace and tyranny, even the best intentioned tyranny, is freedom.

We can, and should, work with freedom fighters wherever they exist to oppose tyrants. We should interfere where we can to put an end to genocide. But unless we are prepared to try and take over the world, we need to recognize that even our power has limits.

Empire? Sure, territorial conquest leads to bad things. But we want to walk away once people are free. Where has that happened in history? I think it's the lust for land that leads to what you speak of.

And, yeah, evil exists, but that's no reason to let it lead a comfortable life. You seem to be saying, we can't eradicate it, so let's give up. I can't buy into that.

Our power can kill a significant number of people who think they are entitled to ruin and end other people's lives. No, we can't take over the world, but we don't want to. We can just wipe out as many baddies as feasible, and then go home knowing that we've left the good people in a much better position to lead nice lives. I'm willing to go that far.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Penske threw up his usual photoshops, declared he was going Democrat for a day and ahalf or so, and we discussed whether or not she was a stealth candidate with no record to have to fight over, or if it was pure cronyism, plain and simple.

I don't know that we reached any conclusions, but do we ever?

Please show me a cite on a Harryette Miers phottoshoppe? There are none. Your side posted pics of her and made fun of her hair and makeup, as if y'all are so beautiful. You leftists accuse me of being up Bush's arse, and yet I came out first against this nomination from a substantive standpoint, and yet you still use your petty puerile PoPD against me, so, in the words of one of the great demo thinkers on this Board, Go. Fuck. Yourself. Hard.

As for our collective opinion I think the vote was 5-2-1 for confirmation.

[Replaced_Texan]

But I'm posting outrage at this which is an article that talks about an insurance company trying to dump group policies for trade associations in California.

Goddamnit, trade association group policies are the only way that some sole proprietors can get health insurance.

Goddamned insurance companies.


I'm not here.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I never threatened to kill the President. I simply stated that I'd rather see him dead than me.

And I was one of your biggest defenders, on the board and in the off board conversations of the same.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Documents Show Supreme Court Nominee's Close Ties to Bush

• A few days later, Ms. Miers wrote to thank the Bushes, saying, "Texas has a very popular governor and first lady!" She recalled a little girl who collected Mr. Bush's autograph and said, "I was struck by the tremendous impact you have on the children whose lives you touch."

(Alternative conservative link with same basic message.)

Just because you are devoid of any respect for the institutions and iconic leaders of this great Nation, doesn't mean everyone has to be so unpatriotic. Harryette Miers is not qualified to be a Supreme, but it is unrelated to her respect for the President, not because of it.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
It was high, but they had been trying logical discourse of a sort with Penske for several days, with much frustration. I just told Spanky to F-off when he said I was talking like a Stalinist fellow traveller.

Penske does a reasonable facsimile of a wounded innocent. After all, nothing he says about the Dems here could or should be taken to heart by those on the Board.

S_A_M

And why is that hard to believe S_A_M? I don't personalise criticism of W. Even when the lefties (like dimwit shill, Michael Moore) say he is stupid and anyone who votes for him is a stupid religious freak. I know better. I would expect that you (et al) do to. Although some continue to prove me wrong with think skinned, baby's arse soft sensitivities. Perhaps if we all joined hands and sang the Cum-by-ah?

[pantaloonie]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Just because you are devoid of any respect for the institutions and iconic leaders of this great Nation, doesn't mean everyone has to be so unpatriotic. Harryette Miers is not qualified to be a Supreme, but it is unrelated to her respect for the President, not because of it.

Cut him a break, he's bitter and projecting.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Please show me a cite on a Harryette Miers phottoshoppe? There are none. Your side posted pics of her and made fun of her hair and makeup, as if y'all are so beautiful. You leftists accuse me of being up Bush's arse, and yet I came out first against this nomination from a substantive standpoint, and yet you still use your petty puerile PoPD against me, so, in the words of one of the great demo thinkers on this Board, Go. Fuck. Yourself. Hard.

As for our collective opinion I think the vote was 5-2-1 for confirmation.

Interesting. I distinctly recall seeing on this board a photoshoppe of Harriet with her face superimposed on a peace protestor during a march.

Can't find it now. Odd, that.