mattp

Underworld: they could park aircraft carriers off our coast, announce to the world that we've been doing bad things and better not step further out of line, and maybe raid one of our consular offices somewhere, for starters.

Will provoking war with Syria and Iran help secure oil fields?

In last night's broadcast, he looked straight at the camera and said "I'm not one of those guys who worries about his legacy."

If you and NTM want to go to Prost, I bet the others would go along with it. Prost! German pub. 7311 Greenwood Ave. N., Seattle, Washington - Atmosphere: Modern neighborhood pub, with bench tables to give it a bit of that German "Studentenkneipe" feeling. Owner is of German descent, and features big black-and-white pictures of the ancestral homeland on the walls. Clientele is from around the area, and tends towards a younger 20- and 30-something crowd.

Last night, Bush acknowledged that the American people do not want an escalation and Congress doesn't want it. I'm not sure he's acknowledged the fact that many if not most or our military leaders are worried about our troop readiness or at least our ability to sustain this level of engagement. But he DID say that he had his finger on the button and Congress couldn't stop him. Given that statement, do those who stated after the election that the Dem's should not talk about impeachment STILL feel that way?

I was unaware that we had withdrawn our troops from Saudia Arabia to that extent, Tvash, but KK's point remains the same: we generally tend to dig in and stay when we identify areas where we have important interests or where we can build a base from which to address events in a broader region where we have important interests. At almost no time have either the President's critics or anybody in the government or the military acknowledged that, since even before 911, the men who brought you Iraq were looking for an opportunity to invade and set up permanent shop. But now they've done it. We have the bases and there will be sufficient instability in Iraq for any foreseeable future that they can justify holding onto that real estate to even the most skeptical members of any Congressional committee. How does escalating things now relate to the goal of setting up long term bases in Iraq - or that of getting the Iraqi's to sign long term oil sharing agreements - or of containing Iran? Will provoking broader war in the region (now) lead to anything like stability in the long run? Don't we run a huge risk that we will drive nations and forces who are now not so unified against us and at least in some cases not engaged in an active military build up to band together and oppose the US? Do we really think that we can whack another hornet's nest and control the swarm?

The good news is that my buddies still let me tag along. Our darling little kitty has claimed another route and, although the woods were full of animal tracks, we didn't see any critters. Apparently, the cat pee scared them off.

How much snow was on the ground at the parking lot?

If we go to Phinney, will Tvash show up?

I packed up a bunch of stuff -- well, more accurately I "pre-packed" it. My heap of nylon and wool clothing, slings, etc. along with the ice screws, carabiners and tools drew the attention of our favorite cat. The stuff wasn't on my basement floor for more than an hour before the little ba#%ard got to it. Why does he do this? Is climbing gear better than kitty litter?

I'm afraid you may be right, Virenda. "They" will not dare stand up but some will bring weak objections to the public eye in hopes of cashing in on their prescience later. It doesn't look good. Is there some other interpretation of current events?

I think you are right, Mr. K, that their vision is for a permanent "presence" consisting of bases and troops in Iraq. Certainly, we're building facilities there which are not intended to be temporary, and this vision is consistent with the neocons' stated ambitions before 911. However, they've lied to us all along, no? What of the current "surge" in troop strength (not an escalation, they say), while inching closer and close to confrontation with Iran and Syria (not a provocation, they say)? What exactly do you think the current actions might be aimed at?

Four years ago, many were saying (among other things) that we didn't support going to war for oil. Those in support of the pending invasion were scathingly critical of such naive ignorance on the part of those who would appease Saddam and referred to them as akin to a certain Mr. Chaimberlain who declined to challenge Hitler prior to World War II. Now all realize that Saddam was not quite as dangerous as Hitler, and we've seen that Bush's stated reasons for invading Iraq were false. Few on the right even still maintain that the intelligence was simply mistaken without any effort to spin it, do they? With this surge, the President tells us that the goal is to stabilize Iraq so the Iraqi's can take control of their own future and there can be peace, but that is obviously BS. There have been a parade of military experts telling us that the number of troops to be added is too small to tip the scales in that fashion, and that the Iraqi army and police are simply not up for the job -- even if they suddenly changed purposes overnight and abandoned their program of systematically attacking Sunni's. So: what are we doing? Preparing to bomb Iran, trying to encourage this oil deal with the Iraqi's, or something else? Is there really any "bottom line" here that is not all about oil? JayB? Fairweather? Any speculation?

Meanwhile, here is more on the oil deal: page

Too bad. This guy presents a fairly plausible argument that the clowns are going to bomb Iran, which would almost certainly DEEPEN our troubles in the region, would it not?

Or maybe he's in it for the Rapture?

Its not too much of a stretch to imagine that they've decided they are going to attack Iran, either. And who knows? Syria as well? Clearly, they have litle fear of a general instability in the region. I think the oil deal scenario is plausible, but there may also be other things going on at the same time.

Fair enough, that. By the way, who is RR?

Jay, it seems that you need another cup of coffee again today. I have not said you or anybody else have to approve of Chavez. You, Mr. K, Mr. Fairweather, and Rush Limbaugh have criticized, ridiculed, and --oh wait: I don't want to use too strong of a word -- those who complained about US election results while you are now acrid in their criticism of those who disagree with their assessment of politics in Venezuela (oh wait: I did it again: "acrid" is too strong a word -- maybe I mean "dismissive or vaguely insulting." (And, by the way: Fairweather started this thread by saying that Chavez needs to be "slapped" and you said that his last move had been "shocking." I'm not really sure those reactions are far from expressions of outrage.)

Here's another theory: Bush has already decided he's going to bomb Iran. He fears that the Mahdi army will attack US troops in Baghdad when he does so. They figure 20,000 more guys will be enough to take on the Mahdi army. Plausible?

Boy. You really know how to rebut somebody, Jay. Soften the phrase "being so outraged" and replace it with the phrase "being so stridently vocal about how they disapprove" if you like. But the fact is, there would appear to be some hypocrisy or discord in the positions I describe, wouldn't there?

Is a consular office the same as an embassy? --- With the situation clearly deteriorating and with so many generals and others saying this modest increase in troop levels is not likely to tip the scales, I wondered if GW was simply trying to be sure the whole thing doesn't completely fall apart until the next guy takes office. Who knows. But over lunch I heard some wacko on the extreme liberal media propaganda tool NPR suggest that the reason for the "surge" may be to show our continuing commitment in the face of so many U.S. politicians' calls for withdrawal. The point, she said, was to reassure Talibani and the current Iraqi Congress that we are not going to pull the rug from under them, thereby encouraging them to go ahead with signing production sharing agreements with Western oil companies that may extend as far as thirty years into the future. I don't know enough to consider this more than speculation, but does anybody else have any idea why we might be proposing the surge at this point? Clearly you can't believe Condi and company as to why they do anything.

Time will tell whether or not it works out for Chavez or for Venezuela. Meanwhile, I find it telling that those who support "democracy" are so often in support of the original idea for the Iraq invasion while being so outraged at the results in Venezuela or Palestine, and who get so incensed that they result to name calling and demagoguery whenever someone refers to the fact that GW may not have been properly elected originally.

Hmmm... we tried that in Iraq but maybe it would work better in Venezuela.

There you go, KK, spewing vile and vinegar when you really have nothing to say. You apparently don’t like what Mr. Chavez stands for. Big surprise. I’m not saying I’m a supporter, either, although I do admire the guy’s pluck. He was elected, however. As far as I know, we have no reason to think the elections were unfair. If you respect democracy around the world, you gotta respect him as an elected leader. I am only suggesting that you admit your objection is ideological and wondering if the bottom line is that you only respect free and fair elections if they produce a result you support. And I wonder whether, if you liked the result, you feel unfair elections should be respected as well. Mr. Bush was elected on false pretenses, at least the first time around, and all analysis indicates that by any standard a fair count of that election would have shown he lost that election as well. Yet you seem to suggest that those such as myself who state that Bush should not be our president, or in other discussions have criticized his policies as corrupt or worse, “hate America?” You can go with “get over it,” but the “hate America first” is straight out of Rush Limbaugh CA ten years ago. It really shows nothing more than that you have nothing to say and can only show crude contempt for those who actually DO have something to say. Or else it shows that you believe political debate is by definition unpatriotic.