Posting Towards Gomorrah

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
It wasn't perfect, but what is? It was working.

Again, 20/20 hindsight. Saddam kept rattling his sabre and everyone in the world - from the Neo-Cons to the Libs to the Brits to the French all thought he was rebuilding his arsenal.

And spare me your crocodile tears for the UN's legitimacy.

As long as we are somehow beholden to that corrupt, inept* institution, it should at least have some semblance of legitimacy, no

*It's not inept in being corrupt

What?

"What" is right? Let's start with the Islamic revolution of 1979, when the Iranians took all those Americans hostages? Was this a result of American imperialism? Antipathy to Bush doctrine?

This hatred of the West is endemic to the Muslim religion as a whole and has nothing to do with the policies of Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton or Bush - to lay the fault of terrorism upon American foreign policy is absurd.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Woo hoo!

Spanky, can you start posting on the FB some more?

and it happened under your watch! Ty could have ran me off but passed on the chance or some reason. history will remmeber your term well.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
What did I do?

You should click on Burger's link.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes but on the prior scenario it was going to last indefinitely. They had been there for ten years and may have had to be there another thirty more. In addition, it was just a matter of time one of our jets would be shot down in the no fly zone.

(a) Only if you think Hussein is immortal.

(b) We're in no present danger of leaving Iraq, and indeed seem to be building permanent bases there.

(c) One of our jets was going to be shot down, so we had to invade?

You guys are considering costs on the containment side, but not on the go-to-war side. WTF?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
You should click on Burger's link.

What link?

[Replaced_Texan]

Timing a beer boycott with the start of football season seems a bit short sighted to me.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
(a) Only if you think Hussein is immortal.

(b) We're in no present danger of leaving Iraq, and indeed seem to be building permanent bases there.

(c) One of our jets was going to be shot down, so we had to invade?

You guys are considering costs on the containment side, but not on the go-to-war side. WTF?

The current dictator of North Korea's father wasn't immortal either. We closed our bases in Saudi Arabia and we will eventually close them in Iraq. And its not really so much that one of our jets would be shot down as one of our pilots would end up in Saddam Husseins hands. Then we would be faced with the option of invading to get him or her back.

The continued implementation of the containments system was not an option. Too many things could go wrong. And unlike the Soviet Union, we could fix the problem. We didn't need to continue with an unsatisfactory status quo.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Again, 20/20 hindsight. Saddam kept rattling his sabre and everyone in the world - from the Neo-Cons to the Libs to the Brits to the French all thought he was rebuilding his arsenal.

As you pointed out, we're talking in retrospect. Time will have to wait to see what the policymakers knew at the time.

As long as we are somehow beholden to that corrupt, inept* institution, it should at least have some semblance of legitimacy, no

*It's not inept in being corrupt

Sure. But selective caring about the UN when it's helpful to us and ignoring it when it isn't is also a way of undermining its legitimacy.

"What" is right? Let's start with the Islamic revolution of 1979, when the Iranians took all those Americans hostages? Was this a result of American imperialism? Antipathy to Bush doctrine?

It was a response, in part, to the coup organized by Kermit Roosevelt in 1953 (?), an American interference in Iran's domestic affairs that still bugs them today. Also, to America's support for the Shah, who was a repressive dictator.

And then there was this whole Islamic angle, which was a new thing back then.

This hatred of the West is endemic to the Muslim religion as a whole and has nothing to do with the policies of Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton or Bush - to lay the fault of terrorism upon American foreign policy is absurd.

I think you're overgeneralizing.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
(a) Only if you think Hussein is immortal.

(b) We're in no present danger of leaving Iraq, and indeed seem to be building permanent bases there.

(c) One of our jets was going to be shot down, so we had to invade?

You guys are considering costs on the containment side, but not on the go-to-war side. WTF?

1. See Castro.

2. How is this unlike Weuopre or Korea? Why do we still need to spend taxpayer money to keep troops in either of those locales? Why aren't the people who are demanding that we cut and run from Iraq, calling for troop withdrawal from these two places (both of which, I would be in favour of).

As for the costs, if you admit, as it appears you did, that the WTC attack , per bin Laden, was predicated on the US having troops in SAudi, isn't WTC a cost of containment?> How many more of those could we have affourded?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

And then there was this whole Islamic angle, which was a new thing back then.



I think you're overgeneralizing.

Yes, and there is both a moderate Muslim movement and a Santa Claus., Virginia.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Timing a beer boycott with the start of football season seems a bit short sighted to me.

This is really over the top. Some idiot at Miller Brewing Company was a moron and broke the Golden Rule of business: never publicly take a side in a hot button political issue. I am sure Miller won't make the same mistake again. Time to drop it.

Her continued focus on this subject makes her seem like a whining liberal.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Timing a beer boycott with the start of football season seems a bit short sighted to me.

Being anti-immigration, I would boycott over this- except I don't drink Miller or Bud. I drink Dos XX. Has it taken a position on illegal immigration?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
While Bush has attempted to bridge the divide on partisan bickering, and unite the country behind the principles of freedom and democracy on which this country is based, the Ds have so little inherent respect for the office of the presidency, the institutions of this once great nation and our national security, that from the dark undergrowth of their lair of dissatisfaction at their own failings, they continue to snipe at the President, even in wartime.

Congratulations. Your transformation has finally become complete. You are now a total comic book.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Being anti-immigration, I would boycott over this- except I don't drink Miller or Bud. I drink Dos XX. Has it taken a position on illegal immigration?

Dunno, but the Dos XX booth is right where my seats are in Reliant Stadium, but I have to get up to get that beer. I'm captive to Miller or Bud (I can't remember which) if I don't want to miss a scintillating second of a Texans game and/or stand in line.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Congratulations. Your transformation has finally become complete. You are now a total comic book.

The sad part is, the left cannot look in the mirror and see the truths in my post and why the divide exists. Instead you attack and disparage individuals seeking to bridge the gap. I go back to my earlier sincere post, I meet many on the far left in my travels. They all espouse a similar ideology of non-bias (no bias against anything, every idea, creed, ideology et al is equally valid and worthy of respect), multicultural kumbayism....they are all pacificists, against war in almost any situation. They talk about the UN and talking and understanding the causes of the international strife as the solution, i.e. American imperialism over the past century is to blame. All of these people are college grads,, many with graduate degrees, many from first tier schools, successful, intelligent etc.

and yet, despite the humanistic mantras, almost to a person, they have "Fuck Bush" bumper stickers on their cars. They espouse hatred for the President of the US, wish death upon (hi Wonk!). They espouse hatred for Christians who vocalise their religious morality and attemtp to inject into the national debate, but not criticism based on a critique of the ideas, but rather a visceral hatred of anyone who espouses those ideas/morality as "fucking christian wackos". The Israelis are "facist puppets" of the US. They teach their children this hate. I don't get it.

The people I hear saying this are not some far left. This is the Howard Dean/Ned Lamont wing of the D party. The mainstream of the Ds at this point.

Can you please explain the hypocrasy and the hate? That is the gap I am trying to bridge on a daily basis, but you act like it doesn't exist, yet it comes straight from the mouth of Dean to the streets of the Blue city-states of America....