A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
You're falling for the "you don't see what I see, and that must be naivite'" meme. Are you on a coast? I've seen this before.

Every once in awhile -- and usually just after you've said something that's somewhat worth reading -- you remind us of what an incredible asshole you really are.

But thanks for confirming the myth of the Great Plains. You're all so much smarter, cleaner, purer, and of course MORE AMERICAN than the rest of us.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Do I have to go back and say that I see the same role for christian fundamentalism, or even just strong christianity, to get you to forego the obvious "ooo, he's racist and religionist!" shit?

Why are you assuming that Adder is calling you "racist and religionist"? If you said the same thing about "strong christianity" as you did about "militant Islam" --

• After all, the various populations are attracted to [strong christianity] only because they lack other vision for life improvement

-- you would still be oversimplifying.


OTOH, perhaps my feeling that faith is not simply a port of last resort for people who, to use your utterly non-patronizing phrase, "lack other vision" is simply a reflection of my coastal snobbery.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Why are you assuming that Adder is calling you "racist and religionist"? If you said the same thing about "strong christianity" as you did about "militant Islam" --

• After all, the various populations are attracted to [strong christianity] only because they lack other vision for life improvement

-- you would still be oversimplifying.

It works for several lifestyles- watch....

• After all, the various populations are attracted to [legal work] only because they lack other vision for life improvement

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
It works for several lifestyles- watch....

• After all, the various populations are attracted to [legal work] only because they lack other vision for life improvement

Substitute "making anything close to this kind of money" for "life improvement" and you're onto something.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
And, GGG, I think the view of many is that instability in Iraq is irrelevant in light of the larger war on terror because, for many internal reasons, even an unstable Iraq is not going to become a welcoming staging & recruiting ground for al Q a la Afghanistan. So your (i) isn't a goal but is irrelevant to larger American purposes because (ii) just isn't realistically in the offing. (Dunno if I agree with that, but I believe that is the way the argument runs.) Now, Saudi Arabia would be another story ...

Who thinks instability in Iraq is irrelevant and what background do they have? What are these "internal reasons" that prevent Iraq from being a training ground.

This is the fundamental assumption of many neocons that I find absolutely lunatic, and I've seen it thrown out there quickly and without analysis over and over again - gee, if it's unstable over there they'll be too busy to come over here; gee, it always seems unstable, why is this any different.

If you look at the damage instability in Lebanon or the Caucuses has caused over the last decade or two, and then try to imagine the same issues in a country many times larger you'll see what I fear. Yes, the problems in the Caucuses remained isolated for a period while they were all busy fighting each other, but then suddenly Russia discovered that that fighting had bred a group of terrorists ready to take over a theatre or a school as part of their terrorism.

Also, if you look at the reasons instability becomes systematic and self-perpetuating, I think you see just about all the major elements present in Afghanistan, the Sudan, Somalia, the Caucuses, and Lebanon present in Iraq: (1) a variety of well defined ethnic and religious groups with separate institutional and governance structures; (2) an inability to reach consensus on national governance or goals, (3) a large supply of weapons, (4) a decimated infrastructure, (5) the displacement of significant populations, and (6) a history of conflict, including very recent conflict, among the major groups in the country. What is missing? What is different?

I know you weren't saying you agree with the neocon view, but were just trying to restate it. But, can any of this idea that an unstable Iraq is not a bad thing stand up to scrutiny?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
(iii) It would be good if the Iraqis do not use their new-found democratic rights to elect, say, Moqtada-al-Sadr.

This is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but the Mideast may prove the old right-wing saw that some people just aren't "ready" for democracy.

No need for tongue in cheek. I think that is is highly questionable whether a government that does not have some significant representation from the al-Sadr faction is going to have general legitimacy in large parts of Iraq, yet if the government has a strong al-Sadr faction it will lack legitimacy with the US.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
But the coersion of SA was a bit more subtle than that. Invading Iraq permitted us to pull our bases out of SA, allowing the ruling class to realize "oh, shit, we sort of depend on US military support & presence to back us up in the face of popular opposition to our rather unpopular regime" and then bend over backwards to help us enough just to keep us from publicly telling them "fuck off, you're on your own and good luck to you," but not so much as to inflame popular rebellion because they are a US puppet. Compared to either of those, both of which would probably result in a fairly quick dispatching of the house of al Saud, a model democracy in Iraq is a distant threat to their regime survival.

Saudi Arabia today is a militant islamic state internally but has come to terms with the idea that it cannot be imperialistic in its aims. So, in terms of how it treats it's citizens, I'm going to be hardpressed to find substantive differences of degree between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

American support only gets them so far, and if we are tied up in Iraq, they'll know we have limited resources to back them. At what point do we expect to see Saudi Arabia begin distancing themselves from us and moving closer to the terrorists?

Don't be surprised if a preoccupation with Iraq becomes a double edged sword in other countries. Especially if it looks like we're unable to disengage.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
No need for tongue in cheek. I think that is is highly questionable whether a government that does not have some significant representation from the al-Sadr faction is going to have general legitimacy in large parts of Iraq, yet if the government has a strong al-Sadr faction it will lack legitimacy with the US.

2. (It was the "not ready for democracy" part that was sort of tongue-in-cheek.) A popular gov't in Iraq could make Teheran happier than Washington.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
Again, Stratfor is essentially negative and wrong. Too many troops would have kept us from the worldview that we are actually going to let the Iraqis fix themselves. We kept it below imperialism - that's a big thing over there. Stratfor would have us trying to convince everyone that we had no imperialistic view, and that's an unwinnable fight if we have 300,000 over there.

And I'm sure that the Iraqis appreciate the distinction.

So you're saying that 150,000 is just a tea party that got a little out-of-hand?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Every once in awhile -- and usually just after you've said something that's somewhat worth reading -- you remind us of what an incredible asshole you really are.

But thanks for confirming the myth of the Great Plains. You're all so much smarter, cleaner, purer, and of course MORE AMERICAN than the rest of us.

Of course we are, pinko assclam.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Of course we are, pinko assclam.

Lake Michigan is an arm of the sea -- you're on a coast, dude.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Gattigap
150,000 is just a tea party that got a little out-of-hand?

Nice line.

[Diane_Keaton]

Gearing up for February strikes against Syria as treasonous, sore loser ex pres. candidate meddles in foreign affairs and whines about losing to little Muslim boys.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Gearing up for February strikes against Syria as treasonous, sore loser ex pres. candidate meddles in foreign affairs and whines about losing to little Muslim boys.

Look, you whiny, liberal Bush-basher -- he won. Get over it. Calling GWB a "little Muslim boy" is about as low as you can get.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Calling GWB a "little Muslim boy" is about as low as you can get.

Damn!!