SC and Prole: We told you so

[sexual_chocolate]

ok maybe "reactionary" wasn't entirely accurate.

 

How about "Nut-Job"?

[Fairweather]

 

I'm trying to have an honest conversation with you, and here you appear to have at least tried to address the issues at hand rather than insult me and hide behind some excuse not to answer a question. But in all due respect I gotta say: it really doesn't look as if this is a two way street or even a real conversation here (kinda like Bush's attempt at "dialog" with N. Korea). Yes, you finally set forth several viewpoints on related issues, but you still haven't really answered the questions as I posed yet you ask your own and then insist: "answer before you ask."

 

 

Matt, I'm not sure what to say. I've answered your questions in as detailed and concise a manner as is practical on a site like this, and I'm not sure how you can claim otherwise - especially given your own lackluster ability to explain your personal belief system. I'm left to conclude that you are either playing a game, are mentally lacking, or are still living in the box that TESC built around your mind all those years ago.

[JosephH]

But I believe his handling of Afghanistan, North Korea, and Iran has been spot-on.

 

Afganistan you can make a case for if you are speaking of the first year or so. After that W handed the country back over to the very warlords that caused the people to accept the Taliban as the lesser of two evils in the first place and we're playing that cycle all over again.

 

With regard to NK and Iran, if you consider no diplomacy of any kind other than demonizing sermons spot-on than you have a case. Otherwise, the handling of both by the administration will be a foreign affairs case study in how to create and enhance problems. The administration's only approach to Iran was to gamble everything would turn out great in Afganistan and Iraq thereby isolating / containing Iran. Instead we've spent a half trillion dollars to greatly increase Iran's influence in the region and the world and to promote Shiite/Sunni violence across the Middle East. Way to go team. Their "handling" of Iran has been an unmitigated disaster at every turn...

[KaskadskyjKozak]

ok maybe "reactionary" wasn't entirely accurate.

 

How about "Nut-Job"?

 

No thanks, I don't swing that way.

[Dechristo]

alright ambiguous military right wing tuff-guy...

 

You're correct about my ambiguity, but way off on the rest. I have little doubt, in some regard, I make you look like Cheney.

 

You're, also, wrong if you believe I was defending Fairweather or taking a side in the tomfoolery here. I did intend to confront mattp for the reasons I put forth.

 

Take your time in honing your awareness of human nature rather than aspiring to the most noble and highest categorization of Right and Wrong.

Perhaps, then, you'll not feel compelled to consign anyone automatically to a tidy box.

[mattp]

Right wing tough guy: if the Syrian bad guy is standing there with a gun aimed at our good guys, or appearing as if he might be holding a bomb, I would not blame them for shooting him. If he is simply walking along the roadside in Ambar province, unarmed, the same shooting would be a crime. Can you possibly imagine a scenario where the US would not be right to kill anybody they wish, or are you with Fairweather that might makes right as long as we're talking about US might and the US is always right?

[mattp]

Ooh Fairweather. You say I have ADD, you call me condescending, and now you complain that I am mentally lacking. You really know how to hurt a guy.

 

You’ve done some nice mental gymnastics, but still have not really answered the question how Gush did so much better than Gore would have with a response to 911 other than to express your deepfounded admiration for the guy. Apparently, you have no idea why it is you think Gore would have done so much worse or are unwilling to say so.

 

Similarly, you haven’t really said whether you still favor dropping a nuclear bomb somewhere. You hinted, I suppose, saying that “somebody:” is going to have to do the dirty deed to Iran. OK: I’ll accept that as your answer. But you certainly did not come out and say: yes, I still believe we should consider using nuclear weapons, and I would start with Iran. Is that what you think or not?

 

Then you say I’ve failed to explain my personal belief system? In this as in any other discussion, I have certainly done so at least as well as you have. And part of that belief system includes the idea that we should try to solve international problems with diplomacy and favor negotiation over the use of force or threat of same. In this, Bush has failed miserably in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

 

Nobody could or would have, as you say, bent over and grabbed their ankles after 911. The American public and indeed most of our allies expected or demanded a military response. It could have been targeted at the actual terrorists and their training camps, though, rather than at removing one government and installing a new one that may or may not turn out better for us in the long run.

 

No President of the US could have merely stood by while Iran and N. Korea fired up a nuclear program. They might have pursued some combination of discussion and threat of force or sanctions that actually slowed those programs down, or led to their abandonment, but Bush’s actions, while maybe satisfying in their rhetorical value, have led only to an acceleration of those programs and are leading us toward certain conflict. Would Gore have fared any better? I don’t know. I don’t see how he could have done worse unless you think war would with these nations would already be under way somehow.

 

And Iraq? We all agree that is a mess, and it was ill advised from the start.

 

Other than to simply tell us how great W is, can you guess how Gore really would have done so much worse than Bush in any of these areas?

 

Oh, and by the way: you often try to slam me over having gone to Evergreen. I'm proud of having gone there and twenty five years later I am still pretty excited about what I studied there. How many people would say that about ANY four year degree they earned twenty five years ago? How about you?

[tvashtarkatena]

But I believe his handling of Afghanistan, North Korea, and Iran has been spot-on.

 

 

Afghanistan: Several recent NYT articles report that the Taliban is mobilized and strong once again, in part due to support from Pakistani intelligence and military services along the border. US military involvement in Afghanistan initially met with success in toppling the Taliban, which sorely needed it, but since Iraq our support for stabilizing Afghanistan has fallen through the floor. Afghanistan is by all accounts a security mess. In short, we have failed in Afghanistan.

 

North Korea: They tested a bomb. Enough said. We have failed in North Korea.

 

Iran: They refuse to give up their nuclear program (although they continue to maintain that it is for peaceful purposes, a proclamation that so far no one has been able to disprove with any real evidence) and continually snub US threats. We had an opportunity to engage with Iran diplomatically during the brief warming period after 911, and failed to take it. We now have an opportunity to engage with Iran again, as suggested by the Iraqi Study Group and nearly every other expert on that region. Such a strategy is a non starter for this administration. Every one of its actions and provocations, which eerily mimmick those just prior to the disastrous invasion of Iraq, clearly indicates it wants nothing but war with Iran. Yet another total failure of policy.

 

I, as do most observers, see nothing but failure on all three fronts. In fact, W hasn't had a single demonstrable foreign policy success to date. Not one. This should come as no surprise to anyone' Bush's presidency is merely a continuation of his already well established track record for bold failures. Perhaps FW supports what he WISHES would have been the result of those alpha male policies which play so well to his cultural disposition that assumes that violence and coercion are the most expedient ways to resolve differences, rather than the misery they've actually produced.

 

What Al Gore might have done internationally is speculative, but at least he would most certainly have begun addressing the most grave threats to our country by now; climate change and energy independence.

Edited January 22, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[sexual_chocolate]

alright ambiguous military right wing tuff-guy...

 

You're correct about my ambiguity, but way off on the rest. I have little doubt, in some regard, I make you look like Cheney.

 

You're, also, wrong if you believe I was defending Fairweather or taking a side in the tomfoolery here. I did intend to confront mattp for the reasons I put forth.

 

Take your time in honing your awareness of human nature rather than aspiring to the most noble and highest categorization of Right and Wrong.

Perhaps, then, you'll not feel compelled to consign anyone automatically to a tidy box.

 

oh come on, man, don't get so offended by a rather vague and only semi-serious charge regarding your "politics".

 

in the process, you managed to skip over addressing what constitutes a threat from a syrian in iraq.

[mattp]

Another couple of points Fairweather may wish to avoid:

 

He says he is so happy that Bush was President on 911 and not Gore because Bush has done such a wonderful job with Iran, Afghanistan, and N. Korea, but how has he done in response to 911?

 

It is well documented that the Clinton team tried very hard to get the incoming Bush administration to recognize and respond to a growing threat of terrorist attack, and the Bush people rebuffed them as paranoid. As I recall, there was even a plan or the beginnings of a plan to go after Bin Laden that the Bush people tanked.

 

It is well documented that Bush received a memo titled something like “terrorists determined to strike inside the US” about a month before 911, and there were at the time some warnings coming from the intelligence community as to at least some of the specific 911 hijackers. Bush complained that someone would interrupt his vacation with such a concern and did absolutely nothing about it.

 

How could Gore possibly have done worse than Bush before 911?

 

And then the post 911 response: Bush looked pretty cool when he put on a hard hat at ground zero and said we won’t stand for this, but what has he really done?

 

He’s toppled a government in Afghanistan but it is not clear if the situation there is going to turn out well.

 

He’s destroyed some terrorist training camps, but it didn’t take his brilliant leadership for anyone to decide to do this.

 

There have been some effective laws restricting the transfer of funds to potential terrorists, but is Bush hugely responsible for this?

 

He set up the “Department of Homeland Security.” I don’t know about you but on this I think he gets a mixed report card.

 

He has waved the specter of the boogey man, used it to justify a war that has been a disaster, and used it to justify our policies in Iran and N. Korea. Whether he has done well or not in these arenas, is this boogeyman business a good response to a terrorist attack?

[sexual_chocolate]

I have little doubt, in some regard, I make you look like Cheney.

 

 

Please inform me about the particulars!

[tvashtarkatena]

I have little doubt, in some regard, I make you look like Cheney.

 

 

Hey, there's a guy in my hood that hangs out at the local coffee joint that looks EXACTLY like Cheney, only with slighty long hair and Burkenstocks. It's unsettling.

 

A visitor from a parallel universe?

[underworld]

bizzaro cheney

[Dechristo]

mattp & SC, I thought it obvious the premise concerning the killing of Syrians was "Syrians with the intent to kill" U.S. troops. I doubt anyone in that conflict is halting a firefight to check documents of nationality.

[tvashtarkatena]

Not really, considering the vague histories and uncharged crimes of our guests at Guantanamo. Matt was simply referring to our practice of detaining or outright killing the wrong people, which is pretty much standard procedure for us at this point. When you've got the gun or the key to the cell, the definition of an "intent to kill" can be stretched pretty damn far.

[underworld]

'standard procedure' huh... nice. haven't we gone over this before? applying the label to the whole military based on a small number of events.

 

 

 

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

'standard procedure' huh... nice. haven't we gone over this before? applying the label to the whole military based on a small number of events.

 

If it were a small number of events, I'd be with you. In this case, it hasn't been. I don't consider many thousands of wrongful deaths and detainments small by any scale. It is true the military was under orders from the very top, but those orders were to detain, torture, and kill first, ask questions later.

Edited January 23, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[underworld]

you're throwing out there 'many thousands' as though you've got the numbers in your back pocket.

 

we are talking about the shoot first ask later killings... i'd have a hard time believing that 'policy' has lead to that many. especially if you apply the left's favorite tool of moral relativism to the word "wrongful death" and "torture" these are, or can be argued, subjective terms. all too often thrown around as absolutes when ref'ing to bush and iraq

[sexual_chocolate]

mattp & SC, I thought it obvious the premise concerning the killing of Syrians was "Syrians with the intent to kill" U.S. troops. I doubt anyone in that conflict is halting a firefight to check documents of nationality.

 

 

since the source of said premise was fairweather, in no way did i make such an assumption.

 

now please, how do you make me look like cheney? funny answers welcome, but i'd like a serious one too!

[mattp]

Another couple of points Fairweather may wish to avoid:

 

He says he is so happy that Bush was President on 911 and not Gore because Bush has done such a wonderful job with Iran, Afghanistan, and N. Korea, but how has he done in response to 911?

 

It is well documented that the Clinton team tried very hard to get the incoming Bush administration to recognize and respond to a growing threat of terrorist attack, and the Bush people rebuffed them as paranoid. As I recall, there was even a plan or the beginnings of a plan to go after Bin Laden that the Bush people tanked.

 

It is well documented that Bush received a memo titled something like “terrorists determined to strike inside the US” about a month before 911, and there were at the time some warnings coming from the intelligence community as to at least some of the specific 911 hijackers. Bush complained that someone would interrupt his vacation with such a concern and did absolutely nothing about it.

 

How could Gore possibly have done worse than Bush before 911?

 

And then the post 911 response: Bush looked pretty cool when he put on a hard hat at ground zero and said we won’t stand for this, but what has he really done?

 

He’s toppled a government in Afghanistan but it is not clear if the situation there is going to turn out well.

 

He’s destroyed some terrorist training camps, but it didn’t take his brilliant leadership for anyone to decide to do this.

 

There have been some effective laws restricting the transfer of funds to potential terrorists, but is Bush hugely responsible for this?

 

He set up the “Department of Homeland Security.” I don’t know about you but on this I think he gets a mixed report card.

 

He has waved the specter of the boogey man, used it to justify a war that has been a disaster, and used it to justify our policies in Iran and N. Korea. Whether he has done well or not in these arenas, is this boogeyman business a good response to a terrorist attack?

 

Fairweather? Comments?

[sexual_chocolate]

mattp & SC, I thought it obvious the premise concerning the killing of Syrians was "Syrians with the intent to kill" U.S. troops. I doubt anyone in that conflict is halting a firefight to check documents of nationality.

 

 

since the source of said premise was fairweather, in no way did i make such an assumption.

 

now please, how do you make me look like cheney? funny answers welcome, but i'd like a serious one too!

 

of christ, comments?

 

we have entered a new age of accountability around here.

[Dechristo]

...how do you make me look like cheney? funny answers welcome, but i'd like a serious one too!

 

Dare I deign to divulge that I deem divergent?

 

I think not. It will remain a gift of mystery. And remember...

 

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science."

 

Albert Einstein

[mattp]

comments?

 

we have entered a new age of accountability around here.

 

Damn straight. You said you liked Chavez, and now you're gonna FRY!!!!

[sexual_chocolate]

buahahahahaaaaa, thought so!

[mattp]

you're throwing out there 'many thousands' as though you've got the numbers in your back pocket....

 

we are talking about the shoot first ask later killings... i'd have a hard time believing that 'policy' has lead to that many.

 

Are you kidding? You yourself said nobody should be expected to inspect national ID cards in the middle of an armed confrontation, but certainly our troops have killed "many thousands" of presumed combatants. Even by our government's own account, we have been fighting a bunch of hostile terrorists who have entered the country of Iraq solely for the purpose of de-railing our efforts to bring freedom to the poor people who live there. Certainly, our killing of "suspected terrorists" in the field have added up to thousands, and I'm not really sure what the totals have been in Guantanimo or in military prisons in Iraq and elsewhere. Thousands is for sure. Maybe more.