Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
N.B. Do not see this movie with Atticus.

Hank, are you dressed for the Sabbath?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
It's like that probably apocryphal story about the guy at dinner asking the woman next to him if she'd have sex with him for a million dollars (or pounds, or whatever currency) and she says yes, and he says how about five dollars (lbs, whatever) and she is offended at being thought a whore.

Or, that's what came to my mind.

The story is attributable to George Bernard Shaw. You only think it's apocryphal because for you the price isn't a factor.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/18/pa....ap/index.html

[Couple arrested after argument over the nature of the Holy Trinity gets physical. Scissors wounds were involved. Couple had just returned from seeing "The Passion of the Christ".]

S_A_M

Perhaps soon we will see entire countries mobilizing armies to fight over whether Christ is simultaneously human and holy or whether Christ has two parts, one human and one holy. This in favor of reclaiming Jerusalem et. al. from the profaning infidel. Oh the humanity!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/18/pa....ap/index.html

[Couple arrested after argument over the nature of the Holy Trinity gets physical. Scissors wounds were involved. Couple had just returned from seeing "The Passion of the Christ".]

S_A_M

Actually, I think they did get it. Rarely has a movie glorified gratuitious and graphic violence in the name of a religion as this one.

Gibson should be tied down and forced to watch La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc and the Gospel According to Matthew.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://in.news.yahoo.com/040319/137/2c32t.html

Is he fucking serious. The fucking nerve.

I don't much like the tone of the article either, and its generally inconsistent with the tenor of an interview I heard this week with Blix on NPR (where he was somewhat critical but quite measured). It could well be because the whole piece was cobbled to gether by a reporter from various statements in his talk.

In the interview I heard, for example, Blix said:

(a) He is sure that the inspectors would never have been allowed back into Iraq without the U.S. military build-up.

(b) He had no reason to think that the U.S. did not believe in the intelligence it was providing him.

(c) As inspections began, he too thought that Iraq probably had some WMD.

(d) But, as his inspectors checked site after site "pinpointed" by U.S. intelligence -- to no result, and conducted many interviews, etc., he began to doubt that any were present.

(e) He recognized that, as Rumsfeld once said -- absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. He acknowleged that he could not certify that no WMD were present -- the proof of destuction was lacking.

(f) To the extent he criticized U.S. officials, it was for what he called a "lack of critical thinking" -- i.e. the evidence on the ground never changed their opinions in the slightest.

He also noted the constant pressure to make mountains out of every little thing they found, and said that he was most offended by the implicit suggestions that his team was trying to downplay the evidence and/or weren't finding WMD because they didn't want too.

[The basic thrust being -- "we're professionals with no axe to grind, you can't say that about the U.S. administration.]

I don't understand your outrage, club. Let's look at the bit you cite:

"CHICAGO (Reuters) - The invasion of Iraq has polarized the Middle East and may have worsened the threat of terrorism, former United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix charged on Thursday."

The first clause is certainly true, and the second clause is at least reaonably arguable.

I also don't see how you can say: "the fucking nerve".

He is assuredly far better qualified to comment on that situation than anyone posting here. Is he not entitled to express his view?
What did he do wrong?

Did Blix fail to do his job honestly and well? Did he somehow miss vast stocks of WMD that we found (or any stocks -- save for a few empty artillery shells)? Did he NOT inspect the sites that U.S. intelligence gave him?

I thinkt hat his statements can be viewed as fairly measured when you consider that this guy is a senior, distinguished man who's spent the better part of his career busting his hump on issues of disarmament in international service -- and who was tremendously disrespected, indeed nearly reviled, for the better part of two years by political hacks and ignorant jingoists here in the U.S.

S_A_M

{edited -- mostly typos]

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Rarely has a movie glorified gratuitious and graphic violence in the name of a religion as this one.

So, you're saying it was historically accurate?

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
almost all attorneys support Bush. the people here who don't are law students, Criminal lawyers or maybe PI guys.

In my neighborhood, almost all attorneys support(ed) Dean or Clark. Dean kicks everyone else's ass in terms of contributions. Edwards also kicks Kerry's ass. Per contributions in my neighborhood, Kerry appears only slightly more popular than Bush, about on par with Gephardt.

Though someone did contribute to Carol Mosely Braun, and several to Al Sharpton.

Weird. I'm surrounded by Deaniacs.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I don't much like the tone of the article either
I don't understand your outrage, club. Let's look at the bit you cite:

"CHICAGO (Reuters) - The invasion of Iraq has polarized the Middle East and may have worsened the threat of terrorism, former United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix charged on Thursday."

The first clause is certainly true, and the second clause is at least reaonably arguable.

The second clause is the one that has me outraged. I guess you don't get it either. The constant refrain that Iraq is not part of the war on terror was bad enough, but to say it has worsened terror? Worsened terror? You people can continue to live in your dream world where, unless something related to the acts of a non-US country is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or unless the president happens to be a Democrat, it really isn't happening. The corallary, of course, is that if there is a rumor of an act committed by the third cousin or someone who is related to a republican by marriage, it must be true.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The second clause is the one that has me outraged. I guess you don't get it either. The constant refrain that Iraq is not part of the war on terror was bad enough, but to say it has worsened terror? Worsened terror? You people can continue to live in your dream world where, unless something related to the acts of a non-US country is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or unless the president happens to be a Democrat, it really isn't happening. The corallary, of course, is that if there is a rumor of an act committed by the third cousin or someone who is related to a republican by marriage, it must be true.

Had a big bees' nest in my backyard last fall. Tons of bees cruising around, periodic stinging of the innocent, constant low bee-stress on the decks.

I had to go in and spray it and hose it and pull it out. TONS of really pissed-off bees swarming around for an hour or two, really dangerous back yard.

And then, no more bees.

So, to that extent, yeah, Blix is right that the initial attack on the bees' nest made it worse, but it was a temporary worsening, and it paid off with the end of the bees. To argue that I should have left the nest there because the bees would be pissed as they died out is . . . well . . . dumb.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
So, you're saying it was historically accurate?

Gibson did reasonably well at keeping close to particular gospel passages, so if you read the gospels as history, it's probably a more accurate piece of history than many historical dramas.

That having been said, I'm not holding him to that high a standard and he certainly took a few liberties, but I'd judge those liberties based on what they did or didn't do for the underlying message.

But Gibson turned up the violence without turning up the passion. The graphic violence has all the gut impact of horror film blood and gore. When Christ is walking out of the tomb at the end, I'm left with that "he's back" feeling you get in a horror film rather than any religious feeling. That's why Gibson needs time in front of Jeanne d'Arc, a film that was through of as very graphic in its time but that really imparts the passion.

OK, rant over, carry on.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The second clause is the one that has me outraged. I guess you don't get it either. The constant refrain that Iraq is not part of the war on terror was bad enough,

It's not. Constantly repeating it is, and putting forth flimsy and discredited evidence for the case, won't make it so.

Or, stated another way, if it was part of the war on terror, it was a tactical error in that war, an error based on both falacious assumptions and bad intelligence.

but to say it has worsened terror? Worsened terror? You people can continue to live in your dream world where, unless something related to the acts of a non-US country is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or unless the president happens to be a Democrat, it really isn't happening. The corallary, of course, is that if there is a rumor of an act committed by the third cousin or someone who is related to a republican by marriage, it must be true.

I believe the decision to wage war in Iraq is one that will, in the long run, worsen terror, mainly for two very clear reasons: (i) we sacrificed the anti-terror coalition that was put together in Afghanistan; the war represents a massive failure of diplomacy; and (ii) we don't have a clear, well understood exit strategy; in the absence of an exit strategy, there is no one but us to deal with Iraqi dissension and strife, so instead of leaving an Iraq with fundamental internal conflicts to work out (shi'ite, sunni, Kurdish), we leave an Iraq with both internal conflicts and external conflicts to work out.

There are military actions against terror that, despite collateral damage, will reduce terrorism. This particular one, however, was a mistake.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The second clause is the one that has me outraged. I guess you don't get it either. The constant refrain that Iraq is not part of the war on terror was bad enough, but to say it has worsened terror? Worsened terror? You people can continue to live in your dream world where, unless something related to the acts of a non-US country is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or unless the president happens to be a Democrat, it really isn't happening. The corallary, of course, is that if there is a rumor of an act committed by the third cousin or someone who is related to a republican by marriage, it must be true.

If you'd stop sputtering and take the time to carefully write out, edit, and revise what you want to say, we might be able to discuss it. As far as I can see, 80% of what you're saying is absolutely irrelevant to anything that I was trying to talk about.

To facilitate discussion, I will explain what I meant by saying that:

I believe it is at least reasonably arguable (although not susceptible of empirical proof-- certainly not in the short term) that the U.S. invasion of Iraq "may have worsened terror" (which is what Blix said) by (a) inspiring either more persons to support or become terrorists who would not otherwise have done so, or (b) inspiring terrorist strikes which would not otherwise have occurred.

I suppose that this would be more likely to be the case if Hussein's Iraq had only tangential involvement in international terrorism before the invasion. Post-war Iraq is certainly one of the terrorist ground-centrals. I don't think that is a fair characterization of Husein's record, though, because he was definitely heavily involved in the Paelstinian-Israeli conflict which -- while no longer the highlight of global terrorism, is hardly a side-show.

Or, if the above sends you into spasms, just repeat the following meditation aid over and over until you fall asleep:

"Bush is Good. Bush is Good. He does the right thing. He just needs to spend a little less. He will win in November."

S_A_M

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I believe the decision to wage war in Iraq is one that will, in the long run, worsen terror, mainly for two very clear reasons: (i) we sacrificed the anti-terror coalition that was put together in Afghanistan; the war represents a massive failure of diplomacy;

I'd like to think you people are smiling when you say this. Russia, China and France were all sending significant forces to Afghanistan, right? Russia didn't twitch nervously when we made deals with the Stans to base forces?

The coalition you picture is a mirage. If you aren't taking drugs yet, you should start. If you are taking drugs, you should stop.

The fact is, the rest of the world cries crocodile tears for our people while they reap the benefits of our good will. Fuck them all, just as they fuck us.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
If you'd stop sputtering and take the time to carefully write out, edit, and revise what you want to say, we might be able to discuss it. As far as I can see, 80% of what you're saying is absolutely irrelevant to anything that I was trying to talk about.

To facilitate discussion, I will explain what I meant by saying that:

I believe it is at least reasonably arguable (although not susceptible of empirical proof-- certainly not in the short term) that the U.S. invasion of Iraq "may have worsened terror" (which is what Blix said) by (a) inspiring either more persons to support or become terrorists who would not otherwise have done so, or (b) inspiring terrorist strikes which would not otherwise have occurred.

I suppose that this would be more likely to be the case if Hussein's Iraq had only tangential involvement in international terrorism before the invasion. Post-war Iraq is certainly one of the terrorist ground-centrals. I don't think that is a fair characterization of Husein's record, though, because he was definitely heavily involved in the Paelstinian-Israeli conflict which -- while no longer the highlight of global terrorism, is hardly a side-show.

Or, if the above sends you into spasms, just repeat the following meditation aid over and over until you fall asleep:

"Bush is Good. Bush is Good. He does the right thing. He just needs to spend a little less. He will win in November."
S_A_M

I read something about the Basque separatists, and some other non-Mid East terrorist groups, where they hooked into Hamas, and maybe AQ for training etc. I'm not mentioning this for an alleged tie-in.
These non-mid east groups were shocked to see the level of supplies/explosives the mid-east groups could afford. Of course, much was SA money, but Iraq oil money did go to at least Palistinian groups in large amounts.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
The coalition you picture is a mirage.

This phrase can be very useful in other situations.