Politics As Usual

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Editorial control? It depends on what you mean. But you are the one positing a conspiracy of the major media to destroy the President, so maybe you should explain how it is that all of these various corporations get together to pursue their nefarious plan. I'm no great fan of the media, as I've made clear on this board and the other.

It's easy. Editorial control lies with the editors/reporters. Most editors/reporters are incapable of being unbiased. Editors/reporters are 10X more likely to be liberal than conservative.

What I can't understand at all is how conservatives who otherwise seem to grasp how markets work go stupid when they start to discuss large corporations that are in the business of selling advertising with their programming. It's like the normal rules of reason and logic are suspended when you start talking about the liberal media.

This is really irrellevant in this case - killing/bad stuff sells. Rebuilding schools does not.

What's what you suspected? I don't think there is a Dem party line, but if there was one I wouldn't toe it.

Well let's go down the line. I'll list issues and you tell me what side you are on. To simplify this, just answer "for" or "against." Feel free to list any others.

1. Abortion
2. Affirmative action
3. Right to die
4. Bush tax cuts
5. War in Iraq
6. Minimum wage increase

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That sort of thinking worked for the French in Algeria, right?

Excuse me sir. We are not the French.

[SlaveNoMore]

ironweed
What "numbers game?" Is it a good thing to have more radicalized US-hating Iraqis and Muslims than less? Or are you someone who believes that every Muslim has had it in for us since day one anyway, so the occupation can't make the situation any worse?

It only takes one.

And my belief is this: just as there are people that believe God created the entire universe in 144 hours, there are certain Muslims that have, that do, and that will, want you and me dead.

This war did not change that. And the prevention of this war would not have changed it either.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
The thought makes my chest swell with pride too, but the point has been made that however well our drain is working, our actions are also adding water to the bathtub.

Which is working better -- faucet or drain -- remains to be seen.

Gattigap

The farther we get from 6/30, the faster that tub will drain.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The farther we get from 6/30, the faster that tub will drain.

I join you in hoping so.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
#1 was people knew we hadn't found them in the last X years. This isn't wrong- I knew that Blix hadn't found anything. It isn't irrelevent to your portrait of Bush ignoring a General who said "we haven't found anything."

#2 was everyone assumed he had them. Someone posted a quote where Blix said he assumed sadaam had some. the UN kept sanctions on. Why?

You're right about #1. My bad for being imprecise.

Blix may have "assumed" he would find weapons, and yet there is a difference between the public statements he made and those Bush made. And there were lots of reasons for the sanctions, not just WMD. Recall that the first war was prompted by SH's invasion of Kuwait, not by his use of chemical weapons.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
The thought makes my chest swell with pride too, but the point has been made that however well our drain is working, our actions are also adding water to the bathtub.

Which is working better -- faucet or drain -- remains to be seen.

Gattigap

you linked article cites 18000 aQ guys being around. this number comes from an estimate that 20000 were trained in Afghanistan and then we killed 2000. It has nothing to do with Iraq. Given these kind of recruiting numbers, a slight uptick in volunteers ain't such a bid deal, is it?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Excuse me sir. We are not the French.

And that's the thinking that worked so well for us in Vietnam.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're right about #1. My bad for being imprecise.

Blix may have "assumed" he would find weapons, and yet there is a difference between the public statements he made and those Bush made. And there were lots of reasons for the sanctions, not just WMD. Recall that the first war was prompted by SH's invasion of Kuwait, not by his use of chemical weapons.

I'm a little unclear (1) that you don't think the war was justified or (2) the costs outweigh the benefits?

Seems to me that (1) can be justified under 1441 alone, without all of the other proferred justifications. If (2), it seems to me that it is too early for that calculation to be made. In reading reprints of the NYT articles from 1945/46, many believed the costs of rebuilding Japan and German did not outweigh the benefits either.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And that's the thinking that worked so well for us in Vietnam.

And this isn't your father's army.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It's easy. Editorial control lies with the editors/reporters. Most editors/reporters are incapable of being unbiased. Editors/reporters are 10X more likely to be liberal than conservative.

This is that whole thing about suspending logic again. Big corporations own these valuable media (in both senses), and they just let lefty editors/reporters run amok with them? Yeah, right.

This is really irrellevant in this case - killing/bad stuff sells. Rebuilding schools does not.

It sounds like you are backing off the suggestion that the media is out to destroy Bush, which is a wise move.

Well let's go down the line. I'll list issues and you tell me what side you are on. To simplify this, just answer "for" or "against."

I'll answer your questions, and you can answer the questions you've ducked about what Bush was thinking. I gave you a pretty detailed answer about what I mean when I say he "lied."

1. Abortion -- pro-choice, like the Dem party line (on this it's clear)
2. Affirmative action -- don't think it violates the Constitution; generally opposed to such legislation
3. Right to die -- in favor of it, but dispute that there is a Dem party line on this
4. Bush tax cuts -- against most of them, unlike the many Dems who voted for them
5. War in Iraq -- against, unlike the many Dems who voted for it
6. Minimum wage increase -- not opposed in principle, but would want to review the economic literature (which I believe cuts both ways) before I voted for them

Where's the party line here? I agree that there is a party line on 1 & 2, but I'm straddling it. On 3, it's not a Dem issue. On 4 & 5, Dems split, big-time. On 6, I get the sense that Dems would vote knee-jerk for minimum-wage increases even if economists say it was harmful overall, and that's not my position.

Now, your turn. The military tells Bush they've been looking for ten years without finding WMD, and he tells the media Hussein's got 'em. Cheney says there's no doubt Hussein possesses WMD. What were they thinking?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
And this isn't your father's army.

Things are different now. The old rules don't apply. The Dow is going to 36,000.

A good army isn't enough to win this war. That much ought to be clear by now.

eta: My father served in Vietnam, and it's not like the problem in that war was that our military turned French. A good army wasn't enough to win that war, either. And the French killed a lot of Algerians.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm a little unclear (1) that you don't think the war was justified or (2) the costs outweigh the benefits?

Seems to me that (1) can be justified under 1441 alone, without all of the other proferred justifications. If (2), it seems to me that it is too early for that calculation to be made. In reading reprints of the NYT articles from 1945/46, many believed the costs of rebuilding Japan and German did not outweigh the benefits either.

What do you mean by justified? Legally? I'm just not particularly interested in that argument. If the war made sense from a cost-benefit analysis, then you can have that argument. The fact that we couldn't get international support for the war isn't dispositive, but it is another sort of cost. I know a lot of you think, fuck the French, but if we're going to fight a war on terrorism we want to have allies. Like I said, it's not dispositive, but it's a cost.

You're right that it's too early for a final audit, but that was my judgment at the time, and events are bearing me out. Unfortunately.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're right about #1. My bad for being imprecise.

Blix may have "assumed" he would find weapons, and yet there is a difference between the public statements he made and those Bush made. And there were lots of reasons for the sanctions, not just WMD. Recall that the first war was prompted by SH's invasion of Kuwait, not by his use of chemical weapons.

10 years later the sanction were in place because he had invaded Kuwait?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
10 years later the sanction were in place because he had invaded Kuwait?

I thought a number of justifications were out there for the sanctions, but I don't really know. Google it and see what you come up with, and let me know.

I like how you guys use the UN as a ratchet -- if it's against you, fuck 'em, but if it's for you then it's all kinds of meaningful legal authority and proof of facts.