1. Fred Sanders on The Theology of Sleep
2. Good fences make good neighbors
In the last century, more than 100 million people have perished in violent conflict, very often because of local clashes between ethnically or culturally distinct groups. In a novel study this week in Science, researchers report on a mathematical model that can predict where ethnic conflict will erupt….
The research asserts that in highly mixed regions, groups of the same type are not large enough to sway collective behavior toward claiming any particular public space; likewise, well-segregated groups are protected by clear boundaries identifying their space. However, the study concludes that "partial separation with poorly defined boundaries fosters conflict."
In essence, as poet Robert Frost wrote in a well-known poem, "good fences make good neighbors." Well-defined borders help prevent ethnic tension.
"Our research shows that violence takes place when an ethnic group is large enough to impose cultural norms on public spaces, but not large enough to prevent those norms from being broken," said Brandeis researcher Dr. May Lim. "Usually this occurs in places where boundaries between groups are unclear."
3. How many calories are in the Monster Burger you're about to inhale? Check the CalorieKing Mobile page, optimized for your mobile phone, which can search through its database of 50,000 foods to get that dreaded info. (HT: Web Worker Daily)
4. Seven Wonders of the IT World
5. Disturbing Facts about Sexual Abuse
1) 25 percent of victims are 10-14 years old; 23 percent are nine or younger.
2) 22.5 percent of the offenders are family members. Only 8 percent are strangers.
3) 25 percent of sex offenses reported to the police lead to an arrest.
6. Most Science Studies Appear to Be Tainted By Sloppy Analysis
"There is an increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims," Dr. Ioannidis said. "A new claim about a research finding is more likely to be false than true." The hotter the field of research the more likely its published findings should be viewed skeptically, he determined.
Take the discovery that the risk of disease may vary between men and women, depending on their genes. Studies have prominently reported such sex differences for hypertension, schizophrenia and multiple sclerosis, as well as lung cancer and heart attacks. In research published last month in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Ioannidis and his colleagues analyzed 432 published research claims concerning gender and genes.
Upon closer scrutiny, almost none of them held up. Only one was replicated.
(HT: Vox Popoli)
Don't inquire into a person's past. Take the measure of a man for what he is today.
Never wake another man by shaking or touching him, as he might wake suddenly and shoot you.
A cowboy doesn't talk much; he saves his breath for breathing.
(HT: Maggie's Farm)
8. How to Turn Cheap “Choice” Steaks into Gucci “Prime” Steaks (Note: Contains some mild profanity.)
9. Quote of the Week: "Because we lack cultural self-confidence, we’ve lacked the ability to say, 'This is a good book and should be taught, this isn’t and shouldn’t.'" -- Tony Judt (HT: Gideon Strauss)
10. Josh Manchester on What a Strange Way to Wage a War:
It's an interesting brew, this one: it contains a dash of the idea that we should only fight wars that we know in advance that we'll win, even though no such creature exists; a bit of the notion that at the same time, we'll do so with every possible ally; and most importantly, a bit of whimsy called an "exit strategy," which in every other part of the world, where the inhabitants don't move every two years as we do, means that sooner or later the Americans will bail.
What a strange way to wage a war. It's almost as though everyone were promised . . . that they'd never really be waging one at all! Contrast that concoction with Marine Lieutenant General James Mattis, who related over the summer [2006] his reply to an Iraqi who asked when we would leave the country. "I said I am never going to leave. I told him I had found a little piece of property down on the Euphrates River and I was going to have a retirement home built there. I did that because I wanted to disabuse him of any sense that he could wait me out."
Note: This article was written last November but is still as timely today as it was back then.
11. The World According to Oil Reserves: A map that shows what the world would look like if each country’s size was proportional to their proven oil reserves. (HT: Neatorama)
12. Robert Cottrell on a way that blogs should be used:
I wish some of these poems could appear in a blog. Not in their entirety even, but as fragments, the best of them somehow picked out by someone wise, like the stammerings of all of us who cannot quite speak it whole and right. It is thus too with theatre reviews: most of the time I will never get to the production and all I read is a cursory summary of the critic’s judgment rushed out to meet a deadline. What I really need to read about are those one or two little moments, even in an average performance, when something magical happened. I want those small transient fragments of life captured, the lines quoted, the action that made them live described.
So here is my proposal: blogs to serve as the back-up of mankind, our rough drafts never completed, the store of what’s saved. That’s what we should use them for: the little bits and pieces that won’t find a place for themselves in the world; tiny specifics more than over-large and self-conscious opinions; messages in bottles.
13. In his search for rejection letters of famous novelists and fellow historians, David Oshinsky found:
In the summer of 1950, Alfred A. Knopf Inc. turned down the English-language rights to a Dutch manuscript after receiving a particularly harsh reader report. The work was "very dull," the reader insisted, "a dreary record of typical family bickering, petty annoyances and adolescent emotions." Sales would be small because the main characters were neither familiar to Americans nor especially appealing. "Even if the work had come to light five years ago, when the subject was timely," the reader wrote, "I don't see that there would have been a chance for it."
Knopf wasn't alone. "The Diary of a Young Girl," by Anne Frank, would be rejected by 15 others before Doubleday published it in 1952. More than 30 million copies are currently in print, making it one of the best-selling books in history.
(HT: Orgtheory.net)
14. Wordsmith.org has a nifty Anagram Generator (HT: Neatorama)
15. Gideon Strauss' Micro-Canon: "During the years we homeschooled our children, we basically made do with this little canon, which we could enthusiastically recommend to any family or school on the planet: as much as possible of The Bible and Shakespeare and basic mathematics, and all of Jane Austen. Richly augmented with all kinds of stuff we would not necessarily recommend to others as canonical."
16. It's About Time: CIA Bans Water-Boarding in Terror Interrogations (HT: OTB)
17. Picture of the Week: The picture below shows a large empty space where this Frenchman's brain should be. The dark area occupying most of his head and labeled "LV" is fluid instead of brain. With just a little bit of gray matter on his inner skull, he has lived 44 years before anyone noticed his head is almost empty.
The man's IQ is a somewhat low 75, but managed to lead a normal life. He was even able to hold a job as a civil servant. (Insert your own joke about the French or government workers.) (HT: Geeks Guide to GTD)
18. From the abstract for Hatred and Profits: Getting Under the Hood of the Ku Klux Klan, a paper co-authored by Freakonomics author Steven Levitt:
The Ku Klux Klan reached its heyday in the mid-1920s, claiming millions of members. In this paper, we analyze the 1920s Klan, those who joined it, and the social and political impact that it had. We utilize a wide range of newly discovered data sources including information from Klan membership roles, applications, robe-order forms, an internal audit of the Klan by Ernst and Ernst, and a census that the Klan conducted after an internal scandal. Combining these sources with data from the 1920 and 1930 U.S. Censuses, we find that individuals who joined the Klan were better educated and more likely to hold professional jobs than the typical American. Surprisingly, we find few tangible social or political impacts of the Klan. There is little evidence that the Klan had an effect on black or foreign born residential mobility, or on lynching patterns. Historians have argued that the Klan was successful in getting candidates they favored elected. Statistical analysis, however, suggests that any direct impact of the Klan was likely to be small. Furthermore, those who were elected had little discernible effect on legislation passed. Rather than a terrorist organization, the 1920s Klan is best described as a social organization built through a wildly successful pyramid scheme fueled by an army of highly-incentivized sales agents selling hatred, religious intolerance, and fraternity in a time and place where there was tremendous demand.
(HT: Marginal Revolution)
19. Most Bizzare News Story of the Week: "The body of a 41-year-old man was found in a wooded area next to a guillotine he built and used to kill himself, police said." (HT: Reformed Chicks Blabbing)
20. 7 Stupid Thinking Errors You Probably Make
21. BNET's 10 Overrated Business Books
1. Reengineering the Corporation
2. In Search of Excellence
3. Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun
4. Jack Welch & the G. E. Way
5. Jesus CEO
6. The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People
7. The One Minute Manager
8. Who Moved My Cheese
9. Chicken Soup for the Soul at Work
10. Rich Dad, Poor Dad
Read their explanation and their suggestions for what to read instead. I agree with them about the ones that I've read --#3, 5, 7, 8, and 10—and disagree slightly about #6.
22. BNET's 10 most Underrated books:
1. The Tipping Point
2. Freakonomics
3. Nickel and Dimed
4. The Long Tail
5. The New Rules of Marketing and PR
6. Managers Not MBAs
7. The E-Myth Revisited
8. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion
9. How to Win Friends and Influence People
10. Personal Finance for Dummies
I agree with them about the ones that I've read --#1, 2, 4, and 9—but would disagree about them being underrated. (HT: Slacker Manager)
23. How to Store Your Food So It Lasts Longer (HT: Lifehacker)
24. Popular Mechanics has published a list of 25 skills every man should know:
1. Patch a radiator hose
2. Protect your computer
3. Rescue a boater who as capsized
4. Frame a wall
5. Retouch digital photos
6. Back up a trailer
7. Build a campfire
8. Fix a dead outlet
9. Navigate with a map and compass
10. Use a torque wrench
11. Sharpen a knife
12. Perform CPR
13. Fillet a fish
14. Maneuver a car out of a skid
15. Get a car unstuck
16. Back up data
17. Paint a room
18. Mix concrete
19. Clean a bolt-action rifle
20. Change oil and filter
21. Hook up an HDTV
22. Bleed brakes
23. Paddle a canoe
24. Fix a bike flat
25. Extend your wireless network
(HT: Neatorama)
25. LOLCat of the Week
(HT: I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?)
26. How Do Christian Hedonists Arise From Bed in the Morning?
27. Michael Lewis on how insurance companies evaluate risk with respect to natural catastrophes:
The logic of catastrophe is very different: either no one is affected or vast numbers of people are. After an earthquake flattens Tokyo, a Japanese earthquake insurer is in deep trouble: millions of customers file claims. If there were a great number of rich cities scattered across the planet that might plausibly be destroyed by an earthquake, the insurer could spread its exposure to the losses by selling earthquake insurance to all of them. The losses it suffered in Tokyo would be offset by the gains it made from the cities not destroyed by an earthquake. But the financial risk from earthquakes -- and hurricanes -- is highly concentrated in a few places. There were insurance problems that were beyond the insurance industry's means. Yet insurers continued to cover them, sometimes unenthusiastically, sometimes recklessly.
(HT: Kottke.org)
28. Gay Or Straight? Body Type And Motion Reveals Sexual Orientation, Study Suggests -- An individual's body motion and body type can offer subtle cues about their sexual orientation, but casual observers seem better able to read those cues in gay men than in lesbians, according to a new study. Based on measurements, the researchers determined that the gay subjects tended to have more gender-incongruent body types than their straight counterparts (hourglass figures for men, tubular bodies for women) and body motions (hip-swaying for men, shoulder-swaggering for women) than their straight counterparts.
29. Scientists Use 'Dark Web' To Snag Extremists And Terrorists Online
One of the tools developed by Dark Web is a technique called Writeprint, which automatically extracts thousands of multilingual, structural, and semantic features to determine who is creating 'anonymous' content online. Writeprint can look at a posting on an online bulletin board, for example, and compare it with writings found elsewhere on the Internet. By analyzing these certain features, it can determine with more than 95 percent accuracy if the author has produced other content in the past. The system can then alert analysts when the same author produces new content, as well as where on the Internet the content is being copied, linked to or discussed.
30. Very Young Children Can Step Into The Minds Of Storybook Characters -- A psychology study shows that preschoolers can already perform an impressive feat: getting immersed in the life, thoughts and feelings of a character. The study used an innovative approach to explore children's storytelling ability, focusing on how well they comprehend stories instead of how well they tell them.
31. Google Offers $30 Million for Race to the Moon
The X PRIZE Foundation and Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) today announced the Google Lunar X PRIZE, a robotic race to the Moon to win a remarkable $30 million prize purse. Private companies from around the world will compete to land a privately funded robotic rover on the Moon that is capable of completing several mission objectives, including roaming the lunar surface for at least 500 meters and sending video, images and data back to the Earth.
32. How To Clean Your House In Under 20 Minutes
33. First Crush
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/mt/mt-trackback.cgi/3907
1
The body of a 41-year-old man was found in a wooded area next to a guillotine he built and used to kill himself
I note that the original story makes several references to his body, but none to his head.
posted on 09.17.2007 12:51 AM2
Re No. 10. Mr. Manchester seems to believe that we shouldn't leave Iraq until we are driven out in defeat-this could take 10 more years. Sounds like Vietnam to me.
posted on 09.17.2007 1:36 AM3
Kevin,
That's resolved by #17 and #25.
:)
Collin
posted on 09.17.2007 7:23 AMhttp://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
4
Regarding #11 - We now know that Iraq was about oil, it's no wonder that Iran is now enemy number 1. We were sold a bill of goods about Iraq, why would we fall for it again with Iran? Yeah we are the greatest country in the world, we plunder countries for their natural resources. Very humane.
John W, I think Iraq was intended to be another Vietnam, large profits are made from the sacrifice of our soldiers.
posted on 09.17.2007 7:43 AM5
The link at #15 isn't right.
posted on 09.17.2007 9:01 AM6
Jeff,
Wait a minute-our president says we are there to spread democracy....and to fight the terrorist over there, so we won't have to fight them over here. Right?
I'm still waiting for the democrats to grow a pair and cut off the funds for this fiasco...
posted on 09.17.2007 11:56 AM7
Jeff
Regarding #11 - We now know that Iraq was about oil, it's no wonder that Iran is now enemy number 1. We were sold a bill of goods about Iraq, why would we fall for it again with Iran?
I was watching a documentary with my father-in-law about 9/11 conspiracy theories. Nice piece the History Channel did deconstructing the claims of the theoriests. As they interviewed one of them who claimed 9/11 was staged to give a pretext for invading Iraq my father-in-law turned to me and asked me what I thought.
I pointed out if it was a set up to invade Iraq wasn't it kind of odd they didn't actually pin the blame on Iraq! Anyway if Iraq was about oil where is it? Iraq's oil infastructure seems to have enjoyed the same neglect and incompetance that the rest of the country has had under Bush. Iraq was about something a lot worse than oil, pure, distilled stupidity by the Cheney and Bush. You want the truth, you can't handle the truth!
Yeah we are the greatest country in the world, we plunder countries for their natural resources. Very humane.
How ironic, we aren't even plundering!
posted on 09.17.2007 12:18 PM8
When I fill up my tank, I only wish that the war in Iraq was about oil.
Liberate a country, rebuild their infrastructure, and then allow them to earn revenue from their resources? Humane indeed.
posted on 09.17.2007 1:16 PM9
About #17...
It's a good thing that person wasn't married to somebody like Michael Schiavo.
posted on 09.17.2007 1:33 PM10
Liberating a country, rebuilding their infrastructure, and then allowing them to earn revenue from their resources would certainly be humane, but this is not taking place in Iraq. Oclarki, Are you talking about someother country and not Iraq?
You are aware that in Iraq, the average family only gets 1 or 2 hours of electricity each day and typically has to wait half a day in line to buy gas. And then there is massive unemployment.
posted on 09.17.2007 1:41 PM11
FYI, VALUES VOTER DEBATE is today!
This is *very* important for grassroots evangelicals:
http://www.valuesvoterdebate.com/
posted on 09.17.2007 2:02 PM12
JohnW,
Care to tell me why the average Iraqi family only gets 1-2 hrs of electricity a day? Surely you know it's becasue under Saddam, Baghdad was given prority for electricity distribution. Now the electricity is distrubuted more equitably. And surely you know that demand for electrcity has soared to levels way beyond pre-war levels.
posted on 09.17.2007 2:31 PMIt looks like you're misrepresenting the facts to suit your agenda.
13
Just believe what you want Oclarki, it's ok.
We've got to stay the course and finish the job. We have done such a great job of it so far, it would be ashame to leave now, right?
posted on 09.17.2007 3:13 PM14
OK Mr Kettle, I guess I'm black too! Dang, John are you EVEN capable of conceding a point ever?
posted on 09.17.2007 3:29 PM15
OK, You are right.
Who I am to questions the strategy of our glorious leader. That was not very patriotic of me, sorry.
posted on 09.17.2007 3:38 PM16
See, this is precisely what I mean. It has nothing to do with what your particular political views happen to be. It the simple act of having some personal integrity and being able to concede a point of fact when it has been pointed out that you are wrong. Instead you are consistenly childish and lame.
posted on 09.17.2007 3:43 PM17
"In essence, as poet Robert Frost wrote in a well-known poem, 'good fences make good neighbors.' Well-defined borders help prevent ethnic tension."
This is all well and good, but the author here is ignoring a cardinal rule of quotations: Make sure when you quote someone that their quote isn't just memorable but also agrees with your point. Frost's poem is unequivocally against the idea of building fences, and it is the bad neighbor compelling the narrator of the poem ("Mending Wall") who utters this phrase, which the narrator proceeds to dispute in subsequent lines (e.g. "Before I built a wall I'd ask to know/What I was walling in or walling out,/And to whom I was like to give offence./Something there is that doesn't love a wall,/That wants it down"). I realize that it's used rhetorically because of how easily recognized the line is from the Frost poem, but I rather dislike empty rhetoric.
posted on 09.17.2007 4:03 PM18
Oclarki,
We've been in Iraq over four years now-you can not blame all the current infrastructure problems on Saddam.
You could say that we haven't been able to spend adequate time on reconstruction because of the security problem.
I propose a compromise: I'll admit the infrastructure was run down in Iraq because of Saddam and the 12 years of sanctions and you can concede that after four years we apparently do not the ability to provide enough security to proceed with reconstruction.
Let me be clear-I would be happy if Iraq could be rebuilt and it's people could lead a normal life. However, we have not been able to contribute to this happening. A change of course is neccessary.
posted on 09.17.2007 4:48 PM19
As of April 2007, electricity output in Iraq was 3,800 megawatts compared to 4,000 pre-war. Oil production was at 2.12m barrels per day compared to 2.5m bpd pre-war.
For an enlightening look at how Iraqis themselves feel about the surge and current conditions, see the results of a September poll of 2,112 Iraqis from 450 neighborhoods and all 18 provinces at:
posted on 09.17.2007 5:01 PMhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6983027.stm
20
Care to tell me why the average Iraqi family only gets 1-2 hrs of electricity a day? Surely you know it's becasue under Saddam, Baghdad was given prority for electricity distribution. Now the electricity is distrubuted more equitably. And surely you know that demand for electrcity has soared to levels way beyond pre-war levels.
I see ex- beat me to the punch
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=iz&v=79, unfortunately, tells the story as well. Iraq is a failure even if you think the 'real reason' is oil. There's a reason we support an oppressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia. It's because strong arm gov'ts make for more stable oil flows. If oil security is a concern the last thing to do is embark on an attempt to engage in radical nation building.
posted on 09.17.2007 5:17 PM21
Here is the electricity information from the State Department's Iraq weekly staus report dated September 12, 2007.
Daily electricity demand September 5-11 was 21% above the same period in 2006. Daily supply from the electricity grid was 22% above 2006; it met 55% of total electricity demand, compared with 54% for the year-earlier period.
•Average hours of power via electricity grid after meeting demandfrom essential services: Baghdad 7.9 and nationwide 11.7. Year-ago levels were Baghdad 6.0 and nationwide 10.4
Kamal Field al-Basri, senior economic advisor to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and executive director of the Iraq Institute for Economic Reform told UPI September 6 that Iraq’s oil and electricity sector needs $79 billion in investment through 2011. He went on to say that the oil sector alone needs $56 billion, from pumping the oil to refining needed fuels. Al-Basri said that the optimal level for electricity is 21,000 megawatts and $23 billion would be needed to meet that. Iraq’s installed generation currently has a potential capacity of 11,000 megawatts.
So JohnW, you lied about there only being 1-2 hours of electricity for the average Iraqi family didn't you?
posted on 09.17.2007 6:40 PM22
You got me Oclarki, I lied about it. It's because I hate America.
Would you be so kind as to provide a link to the website you got your information, so I can read more about how we are succeeding in Iraq?
posted on 09.18.2007 1:05 AM23
ou got me Oclarki, I lied about it. It's because I hate America.
You were wrong, John; just let it go. Don't get all "stop questioning my patriotism"; it's silly. In any case, I really don't know why folks are getting overly concerned about the state of power generation in Iraq and trying to use it as a metric for determining how well they and we are doing. The power infrastructure in Iraq was bad before we got there and 4+ years of war and before that, a decade of sanctions hasn't improved things. Using Oclarki's (IMO optimistic) numbers, Iraq has a power generating capacity of 11,000 MW. Sounds like a lot, but it really isn't. The state of Maryland has a capacity of 12,500 MW; lowly Mississippi has a capacity of 16,000 MW (source: www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/
posted on 09.18.2007 8:34 AMelectricity/st_profiles/e_profiles_sum.html). So Iraq, with a population of about 27.5 M is trying to power there country with a generating capacity less than Maryland (pop 5.6 M) or Mississippi (pop 2.9 M). It's no wonder they are having problems. Also, we can't ignore the fact that the electrical distribution system in Iraq was geared to providing power primarily to Baghdad and Tikrit; now it is trying to power the rest of the country as well. Developing infrastructure does not just mean adding capacity, it means adding distribution as well. That kind of stuff doesn't happen overnight or even over several years, especially in a country as dysfunctional as Iraq.
24
"FYI, VALUES VOTER DEBATE is today!
This is *very* important for grassroots evangelicals:
http://www.valuesvoterdebate.com/"
I watched the entire debate, frankly I thought it was put together like most "Christian" events are, Cheesy. Part 2 was setup so that the candidates had to answer yes or no to a host of loaded questions.
Finally, the results of the debate? Mike Huckabee. Yep that is the candidate of choice for the values voters. I bet the dems are salivating over that choice..
As a Ron Paul supporter I was not impressed with his performance, he came off as arrogant and as I heard the questions put forth by the mediators I started to understand why Christians will not support him. Christians, love war and want their morals imposed on everybody from the federal government. I say Christians as if I am not one but I am, I just think that too many of us have lost our way, just like the Republican party has lost its conservative roots. If we impose our values on others there will be a point and time when what we are fighting for will come back to bite us in the rear.
posted on 09.18.2007 8:54 AM25
"You got me Oclarki, I lied about it. It's because I hate America."
Don't you know that if you don't watch FoxNews, listen to Rush, kiss the ground that Bush walks on and love preemptive war for Oil, then you are:
1. Anti-American
posted on 09.18.2007 9:11 AM2. You don't support the troops(as if wanting them there to die is supporting them)
3. You are not a christian
4. Akin to the terrorists themselves
26
In any case, I really don't know why folks are getting overly concerned about the state of power generation in Iraq and trying to use it as a metric for determining how well they and we are doing.
It's a good measure of peace and civilization. Electricity is rather sensitive to Massive Social Chaos (MSC) yet it's something many people want so when MSC is minimized one would expect progress to be made on electric metrics.
The power infrastructure in Iraq was bad before we got there and 4+ years of war and before that, a decade of sanctions hasn't improved things. Using Oclarki's (IMO optimistic) numbers, Iraq has a power generating capacity of 11,000 MW.
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=iz&v=79 indicates that they were doing pretty well right before the war going up 31% between 2000 and 2001 (I'm curious as to why the sudden increase, these are the CIA's numbers though). Then things got worse but not as bad as the late 90's (this is just production, though, not distribution so it doesn't give a complete picture of Iraq's electricial grid).
posted on 09.18.2007 9:35 AM27
Boonton,
I am familiar with that 9/11 documentary. I have studied the 9/11 thing for quite some time now. There are a lot of wild theories out there, in fact there are some that say that a plane never his the towers. Give me a break. I don't have an official theory other than to say that we still have a lot of unanswered questions. I will use the 9/11 commission report to back it up, the report itself said that is could not track the source of the funding for the terrorist but it is of little consequence. Anyone knows that this is not true investigative work. Even the commissioners themselves made statements like this is a "First draft" and "we need to dig further."
Getting back to that person's theory about 9/11 and Iraq, there is no question that this administration used 9/11 to impose fear as a means to justify Iraq. I have watched several videos of Chaney, Rumsfeld and Bush invoking 9/11, terrorist, Mushroom cloud, etc then always linking it to Saddam. Now they are trying to do the same thing with Iran. I have said it before and I will say it again, if we strike Iran we will be in danger of invoking a full blown WW3 that will include China and Russia. I want a world for my kids to live in, we cannot strike Iran preemptively like we did Iraq.
posted on 09.18.2007 9:42 AM28
Boonton, by "bad", I meant insufficient, which I think is accurate (attempting to power a country of 27.5M with less power generating capacity that MD or MS). Though on further thought, bad might be an accurate descriptor as well. I don't know if you've ever been to the Middle East, but they tend not to take care of their toys.
if we strike Iran we will be in danger of invoking a full blown WW3 that will include China and Russia.
You really think Russia and/or China would risk a shooting war with the US over Iran? I am extremely skeptical of such a proposition. China makes a lot more money doing business with the US than they do with Iraq and neither countries' military has the ability to project force outside their region. Heck, China would have a tough time conquering little Taiwan, let alone trying to take on the US thousands of miles from their bases of operations.
posted on 09.18.2007 10:09 AM29
Oclarki,
What about the website links showing all the progress in Iraq? Would like to see them.
What's the big deal about the electricity problems? Turn your power off for 16 hours a day every day for a week-that should answer your question.
posted on 09.18.2007 10:12 AM30
JohnW,
Since you don't know how to google "State Hepartment weekly Iraq staus report" , here is the link.
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/iraqstatus/
They have a report for every week that lists a variety of metrics including casualties.
posted on 09.18.2007 10:20 AM31
Don't you know Oclarki, that if the website is associated with the US government, people like JohnW, Boonton, et al, will just consider it Bush@co propoganda lies?
posted on 09.18.2007 11:10 AM32
smmtheory,
I know, I know. Especially if they take a look at the casualty figures in Anbar since the surge. Pretty amazing stuff. Of course it doesn't matter because Gen Shinseki got fired or "My Pet Goat" or some other non-sense.
posted on 09.18.2007 11:31 AM33
Oclarki and Symmie,
Yes, I would politely suggest that our government and the Petraus/Crocker hearings are not the most reliable sources to rely on in regards to the situation in Iraq. It would be naive to rely soley on the Bush administration's spin.
And just so you know-I am not just a moonbat blinded by my raging hatred of all things Bush. There is plenty of blame to go around. The democrats are complicit-they should stop playing politics with the Iraq fiasco and do the right thing: CUT OFF THE FUNDS TO END THE SLAUGHTER.
posted on 09.18.2007 12:17 PM34
JohnW,
Why don't you believe the data the State Department reports? Because it doesn't necessarily agree with your opinion? Do you have some fist hand experience that contradicts the State Department?
Sure you're not a moonbat, you just think the democrats aren't far enough on the left.
posted on 09.18.2007 12:29 PM35
You've got me again-I've never been to Iraq to conduct my own research, so I have no basis to question the State Department.
I don't believe the data from the State Department or the Petraus/Crocker hearings because I prefer to get my information from more than one source. I intially supported the Iraq war, but after a period of reading and considering the issues, I concluded I was wrong.
I would suggest reading about the conditions in Iraq from other sources than the State Dept./Bush administration and see if there is some sort of consensus view that seems reasonable. It's always useful to look at things from a variety of perspectives rather than merely accepting what the government tells us. Other sources would include a variety of media outlets from the United States and other parts of the world, personal accounts of people visiting the region, books such as State of Denial by Bob Woodward and scholarly reports. I would recommend not relying too much on television media.
posted on 09.18.2007 1:35 PM36
John,
I'm curious, do you know anyone who is currently serving in the military? What do they have to say about Iraq.
I get most of my information from people on the ground like Michael Totten and Michael Yon and John Burns of the New York Times. In addition, I also talk to some of my friends who are still in the Army. The military experience I have leads me to believe the information that the miltiary is presenting. During my career, I never had the occasion to observe lies or knowingly incorrect information being presented to a superior.
It would be unreasonable to accept the State Department and Petreus briefings if they were painting a picture that was overly rosy. However as you can see by the data I cited the people in charge of Iraq admit there are lots of problems and improvement has come in fits and starts.
posted on 09.18.2007 2:01 PM37
I have met Iraq war veterans who actively oppose the current war/occupation in Iraq. They did not understand what they were doing there and why they had to do 3 or 4 deployments.
Both my father and brother have served in the military and I lived near Ft. Bragg, North Carolina when I was a teenager. My sister married a soldier there.
posted on 09.18.2007 2:26 PM38
"I have met Iraq war veterans who actively oppose the current war/occupation in Iraq. They did not understand what they were doing there and why they had to do 3 or 4 deployments.
Both my father and brother have served in the military and I lived near Ft. Bragg, North Carolina when I was a teenager. My sister married a soldier there."
I can add to this that I live in an area with a lot of Mid Eastern folks. I spoke with two folks specifically from Iraq and who have family there. They can't stand what is going on and they just want us to leave. The longer we are there the more hate we are going insite. They say their family was much happier under Saddam....
posted on 09.18.2007 3:43 PM39
Jeff,
If they were good little Sunni Baathists, I suppose their life was better under Saddam. What about the Kurds and Shia, they probably have a different opinion.
posted on 09.18.2007 3:49 PM40
oclarki,
Good point, I never asked about that. They consider themselves as "christian" so I don't think that would be adventagous in Saddam's Iraq. I will ask them though. Thanks
posted on 09.18.2007 3:57 PM41
Oclarki,
Maybe you would like to join a group called "Gathering of the Eagles" (don't have the link-it will show up on google).
posted on 09.18.2007 5:23 PM42
I have met Iraq war veterans who actively oppose the current war/occupation in Iraq. They did not understand what they were doing there and why they had to do 3 or 4 deployments.
I don't want to call you a liar, John, but 3 or 4 deployments would mean that they have been there pretty much non-stop since 2004. I am skeptical that many people have done more than 2 tours in Iraq since 2004 and even more skeptical that you have met any of them.
posted on 09.18.2007 5:27 PM43
It would be unreasonable to accept the State Department and Petreus briefings if they were painting a picture that was overly rosy. However as you can see by the data I cited the people in charge of Iraq admit there are lots of problems and improvement has come in fits and starts.
What about the GAO assessment of the 'surge'? What about the fact that the purpose of the surge was not to lessen violence. That was expected. If you increase troop levels in certain areas you do indeed make it harder for insurgents to inflict violence. The purpose was to give the Iraqi's 'breathing room' to stregthen their forces, make political settlements and unify themselves. The surge was meant to be temporary because we lack the manpower to maintain such levels in Iraq without either extending tours again or going to more drastic measures.
And here's another fact. This administration has long ago spent all of its credibility. I'm not going to make a big deal about metrics of electricity production or daily casuality reports but face it, this administration has proven over and over again that it will lie and distort the truth for political and personal gain in both minor things and major things. Remember the whole reason for this report was specifically because no one could trust any assessment done by the administration itself. Sure some people may be crazy when they are skeptical of 'official' sources but this administration worked overtime to reinforce crazy doubts.
I get most of my information from people on the ground like Michael Totten and Michael Yon and John Burns of the New York Times. In addition, I also talk to some of my friends who are still in the Army. The military experience I have leads me to believe the information that the miltiary is presenting. During my career, I never had the occasion to observe lies or knowingly incorrect information being presented to a superior.
No doubt you then read the op-ed seven soldiers wrote for the NY Times (I understand sadly that two of the men were later killed and another is recovering from being shot in the head).
Good point, I never asked about that. They consider themselves as "christian" so I don't think that would be adventagous in Saddam's Iraq. I will ask them though. Thanks
Speaking of Christian, I remember before the war Saddam had a bit Christmas thing going on at? What was it one of the Presidential palaces? I have a feeling you can't do that in Iraq now unless you're behind a half dozen checkpoints.
If they were good little Sunni Baathists, I suppose their life was better under Saddam. What about the Kurds and Shia, they probably have a different opinion.
Strangly public opinion from both Sunni's and Shia seem to be very much against us. I don't know what the Kurds think but then again the Kurds were almost independent in the north before the war due to the no-fly zone. I'm not going to say we need to pull everything out now, that all the slaughter there is our fault and the sooner we leave the nicer the place will become. I will say that the time has come to start getting out and stop pretending it is acceptable to spend an unlimited amount of manpower and time there. There is no coherent mission right now and hasn't been for quite some time.
posted on 09.18.2007 5:31 PM44
I meant to type 2003 instead of 2004, i.e. 3 or 4 one year deployments would mean near constant deployment since the invasion. Again, I am skeptical.
posted on 09.18.2007 5:34 PM45
Thanks for sharing Uncenger.
posted on 09.18.2007 5:56 PM46
Thanks for sharing Uncenger.
I guess it is safe to say you are in fact a liar.
posted on 09.18.2007 9:39 PM47
ucfengr,
Correct me if I'm wrong but by your definition of liar (honed when we were discussing Bush's Presidency), JohnW would only be a liar if he specifically knew he was saying something untrue at the time he wrote it.
posted on 09.18.2007 9:48 PM48
That's right, JohnW is probably not the liar at all. It might more likely be the people he was parroting that claimed to have done 3 or 4 deployments. In that case, he would be gullible rather than dishonest.
Oh, and JohnW, there is a definite reason the Democrats haven't de-funded the military operations in Iraq. They are afraid of losing their jobs. Got that? Despite all the alleged unpopularity of the operation in Iraq, they are still afraid of losing their jobs! Doesn't that make you wonder why?
posted on 09.18.2007 11:26 PM49
Correct me if I'm wrong but by your definition of liar (honed when we were discussing Bush's Presidency), JohnW would only be a liar if he specifically knew he was saying something untrue at the time he wrote it.
I believe that John knows that he has never met any soldiers that have completed 4 deployments to Iraq; in fairness, I did give him a chance to back off the assertion when shown its implausibility, but he refused. That makes him a liar in my book.
posted on 09.19.2007 6:30 AM50
Correct me if I'm wrong but by your definition of liar (honed when we were discussing Bush's Presidency), JohnW would only be a liar if he specifically knew he was saying something untrue at the time he wrote it.
Are you talking about Bush's statements regarding WMDs in Iraq? They have found quantities of sarin nerve gas in Iraq, which do qualify as WMD by most commonly held definitions. That would mean that not only did Bush not lie, but he was not wrong in that case.
posted on 09.19.2007 6:37 AM51
I met some Iraq Veterans Against the War, When I was in DC, Sept. 10-11,. The spoke about multiple and extended deployments and their frustrations with the so-called mission over there.
I was in DC to meet some young people who were concluding their marches to Washington to protest our military occupation of Iraq (see marchofthepeople.org and www.marchforpeace.info)
posted on 09.19.2007 10:19 AM52
Symtheorie,
Re No. 48.
You say democrats won't vote against defunding the occupation of Iraq because they will lose their jobs. Are you saying that they would lose their jobs because they are beholden to corporate interests and defense contractors. I would have to agree with you. Good clear thinking on your part.
posted on 09.19.2007 10:37 AM53
Oh yeah, I forgot that only corporations and defense contractors vote JohnW (you're so funny I forgot to laugh).
posted on 09.19.2007 11:30 AM54
Actually the majority of the voters want to set a course for leaving Iraq, that's one of the reasons why there is now a democratic majority in Congress. Neither the republicans or the democrats are being responsive to what "we, the people" want. That's why the approval ratings for congress is actually lower than the ratings for President Bush.
posted on 09.19.2007 12:02 PM55
That's right, JohnW is probably not the liar at all. It might more likely be the people he was parroting that claimed to have done 3 or 4 deployments. In that case, he would be gullible rather than dishonest.
Actually he probably heard about extended deployments and overestimated what that meant. After googling this issue I saw articles about 15 month deployments which is far short of two years but still a very long time and a strain on those who actually have to do it as opposed to blog about it.
Oh, and JohnW, there is a definite reason the Democrats haven't de-funded the military operations in Iraq. They are afraid of losing their jobs. Got that? Despite all the alleged unpopularity of the operation in Iraq, they are still afraid of losing their jobs! Doesn't that make you wonder why?
To bad we have a President who doesn't have to worry about losing his.
The troops were not defunded because the right begged for yet another chance to 'get it right'. As usual the reward for indulging them is arrogance and the usual attacks. Keep it up and de-funding will happen and it isn't going to cost anyone their job....except maybe a few in the White House.
ucfengr
I did give him a chance to back off the assertion when shown its implausibility, but he refused. That makes him a liar in my book.
Bush doesn't seem to back down when his...errrr...'mistakes' are corrected. Seems JohnW has quite a way to go before youc an fairly call him a liar by your stated standard. As a matter of fact, he seems to be 'amazingly honest'.
posted on 09.19.2007 12:24 PM56
Bush doesn't seem to back down when his...errrr...'mistakes' are corrected.
Perhaps some specificity would help to resolve this. When has Bush refused to admit something proven to be factually wrong?
After googling this issue I saw articles about 15 month deployments which is far short of two years but still a very long time and a strain on those who actually have to do it as opposed to blog about it.
Then John should amend his remarks and admit that 3 to 4 deployments is an exaggeration instead of holding to what is obviously wrong.
posted on 09.19.2007 12:58 PM57
My One and only Amendment of my remarks for Uncenger:
The Iraq War Veterans for Peace in DC spoke of multiple and extended tours of duty in Iraq and disillusionment with the mission. They went into Iraq thinking they were doing the right thing, but after being there they changed their minds.
I heard them complaining about multiple and extended tours of duty and that's what I should have written instead of saying 3 or 4 tours of duty.
Iraq Veterans would seem to have some credibility on the issue of what is going on in Iraq, so instead of calling me a liar, why don't you look into what the soldiers are saying and get a sense of the reality of the situation from their perspective.
posted on 09.19.2007 1:58 PM58
I heard them complaining about multiple and extended tours of duty and that's what I should have written instead of saying 3 or 4 tours of duty.
Gee, was that so hard?
Iraq Veterans would seem to have some credibility on the issue of what is going on in Iraq, so instead of calling me a liar, why don't you look into what the soldiers are saying and get a sense of the reality of the situation from their perspective.
I spent enough time in the Army to know that in every unit there are one or two guys who do nothing but bitch; in my unit it was me. I will concede that there are some Iraq veterans who are dissatisfied with their service and/or the mission and if you want to listen to them, good on you. I prefer to associate with the guys who are proud of their service and what they have accomplished and are accomplishing in Iraq. You prefer the John Kerry's of the war, I prefer the John Kennedy's.
posted on 09.19.2007 2:12 PM59
Uncenger,
Maybe you could join the "Gathering of the Eagles" group?
posted on 09.19.2007 2:18 PM60
It's a very old rhetorical trick. Take something that is essentially true such as the fact that US troops have been pushed into extended tours of duty that has seriously strained our armed forces and reduced morale and try to turn it into a lie by attacking a minor and nearly irrelevant weakness (tours lasting 15 instead of 24 months).
The trick depends on the reader making a mental lapse. It counts on the reader making the jump from the demonstrated fact "two plus year deployments rarely, if ever, happen" to one that is not demonstrated "JohnW was wrong, the war has not sapped our manpower"
The best defense, though, is to always be careful with fact checking. I've found citing sources helps a lot. Mentally you learn how much the article that is in your memory changes from the article you actually read. By citing you're forcing yourself to re-ground your argument in reality.
It's a good habit to get into but it still trips all of us up. I probably run through several hundred mini-articles per day thru Google reader. There's lots of bits and pieces of info floating around in my head which I could never back reference if my life depended onit.
posted on 09.19.2007 2:19 PM61
Uncenger,
I forgot to say: I honor your service to our country.
posted on 09.19.2007 2:20 PM62
The trick depends on the reader making a mental lapse. It counts on the reader making the jump from the demonstrated fact "two plus year deployments rarely, if ever, happen" to one that is not demonstrated "JohnW was wrong, the war has not sapped our manpower"
Of course, I never actually made that leap. In fact, I have argued that one of Bush's biggest mistakes was his failure to try to increase the size of the military in the wake of 9/11. That said, one of the legacies of the Vietnam War was the Winter Soldier hearings in which people lied about their service in Vietnam, in the process bringing dishonor on their fellow veterans, to advance a political position. It is hard to ignore the similarity between Vietnam Veterans Against the War (the sponsors of the Winter Soldier hearings) and the Iraq Veterans for Peace. Both have used their ostensible stature as war veterans to defame their fellow soldiers who have served honorably and faithfully.
posted on 09.19.2007 3:05 PM63
Of course, I never actually made that leap. In fact, I have argued that one of Bush's biggest mistakes was his failure to try to increase the size of the military in the wake of 9/11.
Which is the beauty of it. You get to trash JohnW without actually addressing any of the substance of his post.
That said, one of the legacies of the Vietnam War was the Winter Soldier hearings in which people lied about their service in Vietnam, in the process bringing dishonor on their fellow veterans, to advance a political position.
Yawn, yawn and double yawn. 30 plus years and your going to blame the Winter soldier hearings? I guess you beat the Republicans who tried to claim Reagan's tax cuts in 1980 made the Clinton boom.
What is interesting, though, is how you use the same old trick again and again. Whether or a person lied in the Winter Soldier hearings doesn't itself alter the argument about the war. In essence the testimony is nothing more than a series of ancedotes. Person X says he shot a civilian or saw someone do it. That in itself says nothing about the war as a whole. It can be used to illustrate a larger argument that may be very true. For example, one could argue that not knowing for sure who the enemy is causes lots of innocent civilians to get shot which causes a loss of support among the population which results in increased blowback eventually making the war hopeless even though your side has technically won every formal 'battle'. This isn't anything radical, no doubt many textbooks say essentially that.
What's interesting is that an ancedote to illustrate that point doesn't really have to be true. If it turns out that after long research we discover Person X was not telling the truth the larger point may still be true. So the question comes down to what is the larger point? If the larger point is that US soldiers are evil then yea I'll agree with you untrue stories about individual atrocities are very important. If the larger point is that the war itself is misguided then I wouldn't spend a lot of time hung up on individual stories.
This all has little to do with JohnW's point but it's important to acknowledge. Another important point to acknowledge is that human memory has been shown many times over to be manufactured by the human brain. People who honestly believe they are telling the truth will change their stories and memories over and over again as years go by. That's just human nature. I'm not saying there weren't people who outright lied but I think this weakness of memory plays an important role in other arguments (specifically the argument over Kerry's service, I think, was mostly about soldiers on both sides recreating their memories in light of current events. Dislike for something Kerry said or did after his service is more likely to result in coloring a person's previous memories and vice versa).
posted on 09.19.2007 4:46 PM64
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were liars.
If you believe what the Swift Boaters say does that make you a liar too? Or just ignorant?
posted on 09.19.2007 4:55 PM65
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were liars.
How do you know? Where you there with Kerry, because some of the Swift Boat Vets were?
If you believe what the Swift Boaters say does that make you a liar too? Or just ignorant?
I don't know who is telling the truth, but based on Kerry's actions after the Vietnam War, I tend not to believe him. A person who defames his fellow soldiers for his own gain isn't someone whose word I highly value.
As for you Boonton, the tactics used by the VVAW are the same as the tactics being used by the IVFP; defame the soldiers to show the unjustness of the War and I don't particularly care for it. So I think the Winter Soldier hearings are relevant, especially since many of the people involved in are also involved in the effort to defame our soldiers in Iraq.
Anyway, feel free to finish up here, I think this string is pretty well played out.
posted on 09.19.2007 6:23 PM66
Let's keep the sting going! Maybe up to 150 posts?
posted on 09.19.2007 8:03 PM67
Hey JohnW, you want 150 posts? How about this:
It is in our best interests and the best interests of the Iraqis that we prevail in Iraq. And by best interests, I mean upholding the right to life and liberty under the most brutal and heartless assaults you can imagine.
No one wants to police Iraq forever, but by historical standards of warfare, we have had remarkably light casualties, and by the historical standards of Iraqi governance, the Iraqis aren't doing too poorly either -- provided we don't end up leaving them in the lurch, which is a real possiblity due to the divided opinions on the homefront.
There are many disturbing aspects to our occupation of Iraq. This thread has highlighted our overstretched military and problems with Iraqi infrastructure. But that is hardly an argument for giving up the ghost -- if anything we need to steel ourselves to stay the course. If staying the course has become a cliche suitable for mockery, I suspect it's because war is hell and George Bush isn't a Democrat, but not because staying the course is actually the stupid option.
I'm not saying it's unreasonable to be against the war, I'm just saying it's wrong, it helps our enemies, who also happen to be the enemies of the Iraqi people, and all too often it's fed by a lazy partisanship which fails to respect what's at stake in Iraq.
It used to be unfashionable in the 1970's and '80's to take the Soviet threat seriously. In 1930's Great Britain it was even more unfashionable in most circles to want to fight the Nazi threat.
But many of us are repeating the same kind of error with regards to the Islamofascist threat: don't deal with it decisively now because to do so seems over-the-top and a waste of resources, and appeasement will probably work better anyway.
We're in Iraq and it's tough, bloody tough. But it's worth it, and if we don't lose our will to stick it out, the Iraqis will end up thanking us down the road, the same way the Iraqi Kurds do today.
Feel free to disagree, but please think twice before asking your local congressperson to give aid and comfort to the vicious brutes who are killing our soldiers and Iraq's soldiers, when they are not busy taking women and children hostage or imposing sharia law.
Of course, if I'm wrong, I'm supporting a whole very ugly train of unintended consequences myself. So I guess my main point is that we should take the war very seriously and not treat it as a partisan badminton game. We have a solemn duty to get our facts right and make sure we choose the right side.
But as long as you are doing that by your own lights and are following your conscience, I respect your disagreement and salute your passion.
posted on 09.20.2007 4:33 AM68
How do you know? Where you there with Kerry, because some of the Swift Boat Vets were?
Well we do know certain things such as a boater claiming Kerry's boat took no fire and suffered no damage and yet a damage report was filed at the time of the alleged incident. We know one boater claiming Kerry didn't deserve a Purple Heart because there was no enemy fire during an incident yet that person himself turned out to have been awarded a medal for his action under fire (I recall he helpfully declared he would give his medal back if an 'investigation' determined he too didn't deserve it....nice move considering he knew there woudl be no such investigation).
A person who defames his fellow soldiers for his own gain isn't someone whose word I highly value.
I'm unaware of any gain Kerry got for supposedly 'defaming' his fellow soldiers. If anything it seems Kerry would have had an easier time if he never criticized the war (or just did it in a very roundabout way).
As for you Boonton, the tactics used by the VVAW are the same as the tactics being used by the IVFP; defame the soldiers to show the unjustness of the War and I don't particularly care for it. So I think the Winter Soldier hearings are relevant, especially since many of the people involved in are also involved in the effort to defame our soldiers in Iraq.
I hate to say it but I'm not really very familiar with the IVFP so I don't speak directly about them. I'm only pointing that the truth of ancedotes is only relevant if the context is the ancedote itself. If the ancedote is only to illustrate a larger point then it's only the truth value of the larger point that matters, not the truth of the ancedote. This, BTW, works in both directions. Ronald Reagan was famous for sometimes making speeches about famous acts of bravery in WWII that turned out to have been movies rather than real life incidents. Aside from a bit of embrassment this didn't matter too much because the larger point was about bravery which was true. Now if was making a speech about the ancedote itself...say giving Sylvester Stallone a medal for his 'bravery' in Vietnam as John Rambo then people would have a right to be upset.
Matthew:
There are many disturbing aspects to our occupation of Iraq. This thread has highlighted our overstretched military and problems with Iraqi infrastructure. But that is hardly an argument for giving up the ghost -- if anything we need to steel ourselves to stay the course.
Why? To 'uphold life and liberty' by giving up our own lives and liberty? Yes I know casualties have been 'light' but that doesn't make the dead any less dead. Besides you don't give anyone life or liberty, that is something they must hold for themselves. I used to think Iraq could work because Germany and Japan are such peaceful countries now whereas in WWII they were quite the opposite but I see now that this isn't because 'we' gave them life and liberty. They took advantage of the opportunity we offered and they are now free because they choose to be so.
I'm not saying it's unreasonable to be against the war, I'm just saying it's wrong, it helps our enemies, who also happen to be the enemies of the Iraqi people, and all too often it's fed by a lazy partisanship which fails to respect what's at stake in Iraq.
The enemies, though, seem to be our allies. It isn't just an ancedote when US troops say with disgust that during they day they are giving Iraqi 'police' weapons and training and at night those same people become insurgents who are shooting at them.
It used to be unfashionable in the 1970's and '80's to take the Soviet threat seriously. In 1930's Great Britain it was even more unfashionable in most circles to want to fight the Nazi threat.
But many of us are repeating the same kind of error with regards to the Islamofascist threat: don't deal with it decisively now because to do so seems over-the-top and a waste of resources, and appeasement will probably work better anyway.
The most repeated error ever is pretending the present is the past, fighting the last war in this one. By your own standard this policy has failed. The Bush administration itself has admitted that after a trillion dollars and thousands of dead Al Qaeda is a bigger threat now than before 9/11, radical Islam is more influential than it was on 9/11 and we have fewer and fewer friends and allies. Before you try to apply history you should learn it. Britain didn't ignore a 'Nazi threat', it ignored a German threat. The distinction was that Germany was a country with a centralized gov't and organized armed forces. Yes it was run by the Nazi's but the crux of the threat was a nation. 'Islamofascism' is not a nation, has no army nor centralized command. What was an effective tactic for the Nazi threat will almost certainly not be an effective tactic for it anymore than anti-aircraft batteries and Spitfires would be an effective tactic against a fleet of ICBM's from the USSR.
posted on 09.20.2007 9:12 AM69
Hey Matthew, Thanks for keeping this thread alive!
posted on 09.20.2007 10:15 AMI can't read your post right now, but will later.
70
Read your comments. Disagree with you about continueing on in Iraq, but don't feel like doing a rebuttal. Even though I disagree with most of what you say, you seem like a likeable fellow.
Don't know if we can keep the thread going up to 150 posts afterall. If there was only some way we could get Symmietheory or Uncengfer back in it somehow. Maybe if we switch topics? Maybe a lively discussion about income inequality in America would get things started again...I saw Barbara Enhrenreich, the author of Nickled and Dimed, this week at a local college. Her biggest applause came after a comment she made about how she thought it outrageous that President Bush is portrayed as upholding "moral values" and christianity given the effect of his policies on the poor and middle class. She got an "amen" from me.
posted on 09.20.2007 11:50 AM71
The mighty Boonton,
Thanks for the response, sir.
The Nazi threat was not just a Hitler/German threat.
Quite the contrary -- the Nazis were just the most dynamic vanguard in the West of a global infatuation with authoritarianism and totalitarianism, on both the left and the right, in the late 1920's and the 1930's. The fate of democracy and the rule of law itself was in the balance, chum.
As for Islamofascism, Al Qaeda would not exist without Saudi Arabia, and Islamic fundamentalism would not be a threat without Iran. Other countries play supporting roles as well, such as Syria and Pakistan.
In brief, you make a superficially interesting distinction, but one which does not exist.
JohnW,
What has been the effect of President Bush's policies on the poor and the middle class?
The best anti-poverty program is a job, so the president's most important economic role is to be a wise steward who promotes economic growth. As a compassionate conservative, President Bush also strives to give people a leg up in the market competition, for example by promoting health-care tax accounts and national standards for K-12 schools.
I'm happy with President Bush's record -- why do you think I am mistaken?
posted on 09.21.2007 1:23 AM72
Boonton,
I forgot an important point.
I agree with you that we should not be safeguarding life and liberty on behalf of the Iraqis -- they need to do it themselves.
I would call for a pullout yesterday if it were the case that the Iraqis aren't pulling their weight. Unfortunately, one of Hillary Clinton's talking points is that they're not, which is why a special circle of Hell is reserved for her and her unconscionable slander against our Iraqi allies. Her vicious slander against the Iraqi people is much, much worse than her demagoguing of General Petraeus' alleged dishonesty/unreliability -- it is unforgivable.
posted on 09.21.2007 1:33 AM73
I'm unclear what exactly her slander is in your opinion? The Iraqis are not pulling their weight per the Bush administration itself and while Petreus did an honorable job in the face of the intense political situtation that he was put in due to Bush's irresponsibility the fact remains the surge was a failure.
posted on 09.21.2007 2:23 PM74
Quite the contrary -- the Nazis were just the most dynamic vanguard in the West of a global infatuation...
London did not suffer night after night of planes dropping global infatuation on them. They suffered night after night of bombs that came from a nation it was at war with.
As for Islamofascism, Al Qaeda would not exist without Saudi Arabia, and Islamic fundamentalism would not be a threat without Iran. Other countries play supporting roles as well, such as Syria and Pakistan.
You have no idea what this even means. OK Al Qaeda wouldn't exist without Saudi Arabia. What exactly does that mean? Are we at war with Saudi Arabia? Well no, in fact we seem to be quite friendly with their regime which is about as Islamic fundamentalist as possible. Instead we pretended Iraq was behind it all and now the same crew is starting to try to sell the line Iran is behind it all. You know for all the WWII analogies don't you find it kind of odd that no one had this much confusion over who we were at war with then?
posted on 09.21.2007 2:31 PM75
Boonton,
Hello, we are at war with Iran. They're shooting at our soldiers, organizing and supplying the insurgents, and have been conducting horrible terror campaigns againt us and our allies Israel and Lebanon since the mullocracy was in its infancy 25 years ago.
We're currently trying to get them to stand down and to drop their nuclear ambitions without resorting to full-blown military confrontation, but that doesn't mean we're not at war or that the Iranian regime isn't our mortal enemy.
Saudi Arabia is more interesting. To use the historical parallel of fascism/nazism, they are like a unique amalgam of the Weimar Republic and Mussolini's Italy.
They are like Weimar Germany in that they have to deal with a violent, criminal organization/faction, Al Qaeda, which invokes a mythical historical past glory and has literally no scruples whatsoever in pursuing power and their agenda. Saudi Arabia is also like the Duce's Italy in that the official regime is authoritarian and promotes and ideology, Wahabbism, which happens to be feeding and nurturing the criminal gang Al Qaeda that they are otherwise working to de-fang and defeat.
We are friendly with Saudi Arabia because we are carefully picking our battles and because they know how to be a useful ally against Al Qaeda when they want to be. This buddy strategy has produced mixed results, but we're doing the best we can under difficult circumstances.
Before you fire off another indignant response, I would ask you to digest what I am saying for a bit and see if it doesn't make some sense to you. I know you are a very smart cookie, so my inane analogies cannot be totally impenetrable to your intellect.
Cheers,
posted on 09.21.2007 8:18 PMMatthew
76
Boonton,
You asked me, in comment 73, about the substance of Hillary Clinton's slander against the Iraqi soldiers.
In February, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) held a forum in Carson City, Nevada, for the Democratic presidential candidates. You might remember it as the event where Dennis Kucinich twirled around like Pinocchio repeating the phrase "No strings" in a genuinely unusual manner.
George Stephanopoulos asked Senator Clinton why she didn't want to pull out U.S. troops out of Iraq immediately. In her response, she said we need to tell Iraq that "we are not going to fight your battles" and that "you have to be on the front lines of your own defense". We need to tell them that because "they are not standing up and fighting the way they said they would". These lines produced applause and cheers from the audience. [A link to the video of the forum can be found here. Senator Clinton was the second candidate to speak, after Chris Dodd.]
I have seen and heard Senator Clinton say, at another time, that the Iraqis are "not standing up and fighting" without her adding the qualification "the way they said they would". I have not been able to track down a video clip for that quote. But "the way they said they would" version is bad enough.
Many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have put themselves in grave danger of kidnapping, torture, death, and family reprisals to fight for civil rights and democracy. To demagogue their sacrifice to score political points, and to justify tossing them to the wolves, is a tremendously sh**ty thing to do for anyone, but it is a true crime for Hillary Clinton.
She makes a big show, as the junior senator from New York, of how horrible the destruction of the World Trade Center was, and of what a shame it is the workers who cleaned up the pit have developed severe respiratory problems. But she doesn't hesitate to kick the brave Iraqis in the ditch when it becomes inconvenient for her to support them. She can't just say, "Enough is enough, we gave it our best shot in Iraq but it's time to move on." She has to go further and rationalize her abandonment by desecrating and denigrating the sacrifices that have been made by the Iraqis, and implying that they don't deserve better than the current chaos.
The average Iraqi has done more for freedom and democracy in the past four and half years than she could ever hope to do in her lifetime. She is a deeply revolting person.
posted on 09.22.2007 6:16 PM77
sale@mp3.com
posted on 12.12.2007 11:26 PM