Fairweather

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mbs/conditions/mt_baker_climbing_notes.shtml Current conditions. Shuksan and Baker. Check it out.

I don't think I really took your argument all that far out of context – certainly no further out than my attempt at mocking humor alluded to. You complain about my debate style in highlighting what I find to be the most absurd parts of your arguments. Let me point out something about your style: you "typically" fail to respond to my arguments altogether. For example, in this thread alone, did you ever answer my question whether part of the ineffectiveness of the UN that you complain about has to do with the fact that we don't support the UN? Did you ever answer my question about whether your claim that we have rendered Al Queda less effective may be wishful thinking on your part? Or my argument that you are looking for a much more slanted set of information about the world than those evil liberals you oh so despise? ...and you, Matt have yet to respond to my presentation on the story about comments made by the Dhahli Lama.....etc... You seem to think that you are owed a response to every sentence you write preceeding a question mark, but that you are somehow free to pick, choose, and decontextualize your responses to others as you see fit. And when you can't redress coherently, you go back to the old "you're just blaming those evil liberals" or the "left wing media, huh" playbook, or summarize with some other smug commentary. So here we go..... ) "We don't support the UN." But where was the UN when we acted against Serbia at the behest of the Europeans? And who is, by far, the biggest $$$ contributor to the UN? We are. (Not even counting our arrears.) ) "...AlQueda being less effective ...wishful thinking on your part..." A recent report indicates that over 60% of AlQueda's leaders are either dead, in third-party custody, or captured and in Guantanomo. I'd say that makes them less effective. In the future I'll try to break out, and reply to each question presented by you ala MtnGoat. Won't that be fun?

Once again Matt... You typically don't "misquote", you just take your opponent's argument to the n'th degree, and then argue against the absurd. Strange tactic, but if it works for you.... My theory regarding Chile and Argentina in the 1970's can be demonstrated by the innocent lives lost in Columbia (ongoing. 50,000) and Peru (Remember "Shining Path"?) where marxist movements were allowed to grow. Our (American) interest in those countries was in stopping the spread of Soviet-style communism, and I don't think those efforts were without validity.

Perhaps you are arguing with yourself here. And, by the way, you are repeating yourself. Once again here, Matt. JayB's post that you (partially) quote was touge-in-cheek satire to almost anyone with the slightest inkling of intellect. In typical fashion, you quote out of context and present this as evidence to your cause.

Now you're just plain-old demagoguing, Matt. I never said Pinochet was a "benevolent" dictator. I put forth the idea that he may have been the lesser of two evils vs. communism. You sure know how to take the "moderate" out of "moderator".

Do you have to wear a mask and goggles when you de-brain them?

Only if you give up NPR and ...wax my fucking boots. Just trying to help you AK. It's da drugs, day be makin' dem brain wooorms grow in yo hed.

Got it. "Seattle-speak". The important thing though, is that you give up the drugs.

There was a bear in North Tacoma a couple years ago just minding his own business, not hurting anybody. The cops came and shot it. So a bear strolls into town and knocks a couple garbage cans over. Big fuckin' deal. Leave 'em alone!

Any members here?

Give up those drugs and get back to a strict alcohol regimen. The only worms I'm worried about are the ones that might be growing in my intestines from the untreated water I drank in The Goat Rocks a couple weeks ago.

Pinochet was the dictator in Chile. Not Argentina. Allende was the dictator in Chile. I was there and in Panama in 1972. Pinochet was in Argentina Mtnmouse, With all respect, Pinochet was the dictator of Chile: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ci.html

Dalai Lama Weighs In on War on Terror Wednesday, September 10, 2003 WASHINGTON — The Dalai Lama (search) said Wednesday that the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan may have been justified to win a larger peace, but that it is too early to judge whether the Iraqi campaign was warranted. Click to learn more... "I think history will tell," he said in an interview with The Associated Press just after he met with President Bush at the White House. "In principle, I always believe nonviolence is the right thing, and nonviolent method is in the long more effective," said the Dalai Lama, who implored Bush to avoid a violent response by the United States after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The exile Tibetan leader, awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (search) in 1989, said the Vietnam War increased suffering and was a "failure." But, he said, some wars, including the Korean War and World War II, helped "protect the rest of civilization, democracy." He said he saw a similar result in Afghanistan (search) -- "perhaps some kind of liberation." "The people themselves, I think, suffer a lot under their previous regimes," the Dalai Lama said. But he was adamant that the United States not lose sight of rebuilding Afghanistan amid other, more pressing issues. "Now another problem, Iraq problem started, so neglect about Afghanistan, that's wrong," he said. The United States "should follow up," he added. Iraq, he said with a chuckle, is "more complicated" and will require hindsight to judge. "This moment, too early to say," he said. The Dalai Lama said he had "briefly mentioned" his concerns to Bush during their meeting in the White House residence. He deflected a question about Bush's response with a laugh. "Just -- I mentioned, that's all," he said. ...It looks like j_b and Mattp are even more peace-loving than the Dali Lama himself.

Pinochet was the dictator in Chile. Not Argentina. Pinochet and his regime were terrible, but neither come anywhere close to regimes that the left enthusiastically supported for the duration of the past century, and will gleefully support in the future if there is every a nation masochistic enough to attempt a Marxist revival. How true, JayB. This is the real threat to our liberties. I'll get flamed for this, but how many hundred-thousands (millions?) of lives were saved by Peron and Pinochet because they acted extrajudicially against communists within their borders? Granted, they were terrible regimes, but just look at what has happened to countries like Columbia that let these movements take hold. And how many more have died there.

Pinochet was the dictator in Chile. Not Argentina.

Sorry, Murray. Most Americans have little interest in any balanced history and even less willingness to be "even handed about it" if by that you mean a willingness to recognized the fact that our foreign policy is driven by corporate greed and a fundamental belief that we are and should be able to run the world. Murray, of course you're right....Zimbabwe. It should be apparent that I got my "Z's" mixed up after listing Congo. My boss was born and raised in the nation now known as Zimbabwe and now lives here for reasons that probably go without saying. Mattp, Your unsolicited apologies vis a vis this great nation typify the guilt and shame felt by so many liberals like yourself. May you wollow in it alone. I hope you don't presume to speak for us all. I think Murray's subsequent response to your grovel was spot-on.

Thread drift re: Tax Cuts. While I supported the first round of the "Bush" tax cuts as good economic stimulus, I never supported the second round. The rebate check I received almost two months ago remains uncashed in my desk drawer. I think the more recent federal tax rates for personal income are adequately curved upward. ("Progressive", as some like to call it.) Not outrageously steep as it once was, (70% top marginal was criminal!) but not too flat as to place an unwarrented burden on those at the bottom income levels. I had no problem with federal personal tax rates prior to the latest round of tax cuts. I would like to see the national debt, now at about 6 trillion dollars, reduced so that I may one day reclaim my social security pay-in. State and local is another matter....

WOW! That tool looks like it could get you into any number of "gated" FS roads.

Have you looked at an approach up from Elk Lake and onto the White Glacier? It looks like it would work...at least on TOPO.

An excellent question, Greg. Is this money to be used for security and rebuilding Iraq's oil infrastructure in leiu of future repayment? If so, fine. I'd certainly like to see the long range plan though.

I don't know if that's possible in fiercely tribal Afghanistan. Iraq has a more highly educated population to a large degree, and has never had a reputation for strict adherance to the tenents of Islam. I have more hope for a just system of government there.

We effectively scattered the Taliban and Al Queda. At least for a time. The latter no longer operate training camps in the former's host country and their world-wide recruitment effort has been dealt a setback and been forced underground to a large extent.. No longer do militant muslim zealots from around the world flock to Afghanistan for training and indoctrination. Osama, if he's still alive (And I doubt he is. Kidney dialysis aint' easy to come by in the Hindu Kush.) is probably living the life of the savage he is. In ousting the Taliban, we chose sides with an only slightly lesser evil. That is for sure. And not the first time, or last. But the Northern Alliance didn't help/support the 9/11 attackers. The Taliban did. If the Taliban wish to attempt re-constitution, all the better. They're easier to kill when they're in large camps/groups. Bush never claimed this would be an easy task. Indeed, I recall him saying that it would take many years. How true. Karzai seems sincere. I hope we help him gain control over the warlords/countryside.

...but would he gain the support of liberals like you if he "compromised" on just a few issues, and not the whole liberal shopping list? ...I think not. Good idea. Isn't this what Bush is now trying to do?

Many of these countries are owed $$billions by the former Regime. So, yes, they might be willing to "do the math" and decide what is in their ultimate interest. Personally, I think if GW were to give up any military control/command to the UN (aka France and Germany) he would lose the votes of twenty million conservatives straight away. Mine included. Our soldiers swear an oath to the US constitution, not the UN charter. Some of the UN's other great successes: Korea: stalemate Congo: millions dead Rwanda: millions dead Zaire (formerly Rhodesia): Facist/racist dictator now in charge ...and of course, who could forget the UN "safe haven" of Srebrenica and how the UN troops (French, I believe) stepped aside and let the Serb butchers come in to slaughter almost every man and boy in the city. I would prefer to see us bring allies on board one at a time, like Russian Fed., Pakistan, others who don't have a (recent) track record of back-stabbing.

You're right about sticking it out in Iraq. Regardless of your feelings about justification, reversing course now would result in a blood-bath. Matt, do you seriously mean that our actions in Afghanistan were not justified? Are you fucking serious? Have you forgotten how the former leaders of that nation played host to Al Queda? And then refused to evict them/ hand them over after 9/11? At least a reasonable case can be made against our actions in Iraq. But Afghanistan? Even my most liberal friends tell me our response in Afghanistan was just. What would you have done Matt? Negotiate? (Grabbed your ankles in typical liberal fashion?) Apparently you've forgotten; there is an anniversary coming up on Thursday. Some 2700 killed 9/11/01 from 40+ nations. Murdered where they worked.