Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Not Me]

Stern is claiming that Clear Channel's actions are just a ruse to get out of paying him for his contract.

From what I hear, he is investigating using satellite radio to carry his show.

That is the way it should be. Shows like Stern's should go to private venues like satellite radio.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Not Me
Mine are very natural. There is no way you would peg me for someone with implants. I dress conservatively, too. It is just that when it is as hot as it is here right now, I wear tank tops (with shelf bras) and then they look fabulous. Not slutty, but rather ripe.

Not Me, you ignorant slut...

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Me
What a dumbass you are. The fact that a view is extreme or moderate isn't determined simply by the number of people who believe it.

True, as far as it goes. However, your terms extreme and moderate are subjective, necessarily implying the need for context and nuance , which you seem to be fundamentally incapable of providing.

Originally posted by Not Me
If 90% of UK muslims supported AQ's actions on 9/11, would that make them moderates? Of course not.

No. It would mean that the UK muslims were a rather "extreme" community, on the whole. Your 13% number would tend to show that they are not.

Originally posted by Not Me
Are you not shocked that 10% of muslims living in the UK (note - not in the middle east), agree with AQ terrorist attacks on the US? That is in a fucking prosperous democratic society no where near the Israeli palestinian conflict that they think that. And those were the one's willing to admit that to a stranger on the telephone.

Not shocked at all. Nor should you be. Fucking science major.

Fondness for romanticized causes promoted by daring acts of violence against foreigners are hardly artifacts of history, even among citizens of "civilized" and "prosperous" nations. For example, at one time in the not too distant past (last two decades), you'd probably have had a measurable percentage of Americans expressing support for IRA attacks on targets in Northern Ireland and Britain (probably higher than 10% among Irish-Americans.)

S_A_M

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Read the post above in which I quoted from a blog about the parallel with Vietnam. Evidently we are not learning from history. Certainly the right sees things the way that you do, but it's unclear to me that the terrorists do. At any rate, to your way of looking, we've trapped ourselves in a (flawed) struggle from which we cannot turn back. (One wonders why we're about to turn over control of Iraq, given this, but I digress.) This is what led us farther and farther into Vietnam.

If this was our course, how wise was it for Bush to lead us here, given how much the public in countries like Spain opposed the war? Something like this was entirely predictable, bombing or no. If you're right, wasn't he setting us up for failure?

The situation at hand more closely resembles the lead up to WWII rather than Vietnam. I know you are pretty damn literate in that history - do you not see the similarities between the appeasement of Hitler and the appeasement of AQ? In both cases, much of Europe believed that if they just turned a blind eye to the agression, the aggressor's appetite would be satisfied and they would be safe. Clearly in WWII they were wrong and I do not see how the intervening 70 years changes this analysis.

I'm not sure where you think Bush has gone wrong. The view on the left is that if Bush would have been "better" at coalition building, our allies would be with us. This is just a faulty belief. Those that were against the war in Iraq would not have been pursuaded no matter who was president or what tacts were taken. So the real decision Bush was left with is (a) do I do what I believe is necessary in order to protect America, even at the costs of alienating certain of our allies or (b) does preserving our relationships with our allies take precedent in all cases, even if I believe they may be wrong? Thankfully, he chose the first option.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The situation at hand more closely resembles the lead up to WWII rather than Vietnam. I know you are pretty damn literate in that history - do you not see the similarities between the appeasement of Hitler and the appeasement of AQ? In both cases, much of Europe believed that if they just turned a blind eye to the agression, the aggressor's appetite would be satisfied and they would be safe. Clearly in WWII they were wrong and I do not see how the intervening 70 years changes this analysis.

Again you confuse ends and means. Europe was with us when we went after the Taliban. You can support the war on terrorism but not think that invading Iraq was the way to fight it. You can even think that invading Iraq was counter-productive. If we end up with a weak government there -- think Lebanon before Syria came in -- it'll be more of a haven for Al Qaeda than it was under Hussein.

I'm not drawing an all-purpose parallel between Vietnam and Iraq. They're too different.

I'm not sure where you think Bush has gone wrong. The view on the left is that if Bush would have been "better" at coalition building, our allies would be with us. This is just a faulty belief. Those that were against the war in Iraq would not have been pursuaded no matter who was president or what tacts were taken. So the real decision Bush was left with is (a) do I do what I believe is necessary in order to protect America, even at the costs of alienating certain of our allies or (b) does preserving our relationships with our allies take precedent in all cases, even if I believe they may be wrong? Thankfully, he chose the first option.

It's now clear beyond all dispute that invading Iraq was not "necessary in order to protect America." We can still disagree about whether the invasion is going to leave us better off in the long run, but that is a different question.

My point about Bush's leadership is this: The way he put his coalition together made it easy for country's to drop out, and with popular opinion running so against the war in so many places, this was surely to be expected. So wasn't he setting himself up for this kind of setback. If, for example, he had been able to get NATO or the UN to commit, then it's harder for a country like Spain to drop out of NATO.

It's not much of a point. It's just that you folks are willing to laud Bush when things go well, but when things go poorly you don't seem to think of looking at what he did to get us here. (I don't even think that what happened in Spain is that much of a setback, objectively.)

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
I mean, sarcasm is fun as a humorous thing, but people are going to start drawing conclusions about your intellect here.

I had assumed that that ship had already sailed.

Originally posted by sgtclub
The situation at hand more closely resembles the lead up to WWII rather than Vietnam. I know you are pretty damn literate in that history - do you not see the similarities between the appeasement of Hitler and the appeasement of AQ?

Let's see. Ty picks Vietnam, he wins. You pick WWII, you win. I guess that leaves me with the Spanish American war.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

This David Ignatius column is worth reading just because of the story it tells -- Russian agents used a carbomb to kill a Chechen separatist in Qatar, which caught the agents and is now preparing to try them. It also suggests how fuzzy this idea of a "war on terrorism" is -- when Russian agents in one of our best Middle Eastern allies use a car bomb to kill someone with (alleged) links to Al Qaeda, who are we supposed to invade?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

There was an international outpouring of grief over 9/11. There was a rallying round us when we went into Afghanistan in response. The international community understood it and supported us, very broadly.

Then we sought to use the "war on terrorism" for geopolitical gain, reacting next in Iraq based on flimsy evidence and impatience and with the job in Afghanistan not done and hitting the tough part. Most of the world responded accordingly.

Now Spain has been attacked. First, where the hell is our outpouring of sympathy? Over 200 dead in a terrorist attack and we're focused on how it affects some elections and how it affects our already thin support.

Next, where's the support for them in their loss? It is their loss, not ours, and we should respect their response. Not every country will react militarily, especially those who do not have our throw-weight. Referring to an entire country as a bunch of pussies at this point in time is deeply objectionable.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The situation at hand more closely resembles the lead up to WWII rather than Vietnam. I know you are pretty damn literate in that history - do you not see the similarities between the appeasement of Hitler and the appeasement of AQ? In both cases, much of Europe believed that if they just turned a blind eye to the agression, the aggressor's appetite would be satisfied and they would be safe. Clearly in WWII they were wrong and I do not see how the intervening 70 years changes this analysis.

AQ is even worse than Hitler. Hitler wanted to conquer other countries and was motivated by power and greed. Spreading hatred of the jews and theories about a master race were tools he used to get what he ultimately wanted - power and control.

AQ is even worse because they don't simply want power and control. They want to eliminate the West and all non-muslims. Their hatred knows no bounds and the religious zealotry that motivates them is far more dangerous than the power lust that motivated Hitler.

Appeasement of AQ is a dangerous path to take. Europe is once again demonstrating its foolish thinking in these matters.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
It's now clear beyond all dispute that invading Iraq was not "necessary in order to protect America."

First of all, that is not true. Second of all, even if it were true, that is based only on hindsight.

Prior to our invasion, the whole fucking world (even the god damn French) thought SH had WMD. In all likelihood, he did and they are in Syria or were destroyed shortly before the war. If the latter, then it was only the certainty of the coming invasion that caused him to get rid of them.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Not Me, you ignorant slut...

I am by no means a slut, if by slut you mean a woman who sleeps indiscriminately with men (which I think is what that term generally means).

[Atticus Grinch]

The gay reporter and gay photographer responsible for reporting on the gay marriages story in S.F. went and got gay married. Now they've been gay reassigned.

However, I am pleased to report that Phil Bronstein remains aggressively hetero, despite his breakup with Sharon Stone.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
Mine are very natural. There is no way you would peg me for someone with implants. I dress conservatively, too. It is just that when it is as hot as it is here right now, I wear tank tops (with shelf bras) and then they look fabulous. Not slutty, but rather ripe.

Well, Ok, if you say so.

My recommendation is to start using a cheat-sheet for personal attributes, next to those for the password(s). Helps keep those nagging details straight.

Gattigap

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Not Me
I am by no means a slut, if by slut you mean a woman who sleeps indiscriminately with men (which I think is what that term generally means).

This sentence has one too many dependent clauses.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Not Me, you ignorant slut...

Originally posted by Not Me
I am by no means a slut, if by slut you mean a woman who sleeps indiscriminately with men (which I think is what that term generally means).

I see you're conceding on the ignorant part. I guess we are making progress.