Maybe now that they are burning Obama’s picture, liberals will think that the Iranians are racist and will finally want to do something about the country. Maybe they’ll issue them a strongly-worded letter or something.
They can tolerate nuclear ambition by fundamentalist, anti-Semitic zealots — that’s one thing! — but racism, real or perceived, is quite another, no?
Good luck with that diplomacy, or “strategic peace talk,” or whatever it’s called this week, by the way: Obama may be the Christchild, but even his powers of hope and change don’t mean much next to the word of Allah. After Norman Podhoretz was proven wrong by Bush — word recently came out that he gave Israel the red light with regard to bombing Iran — are we going to stop these people? Maybe Hillary will smack some sense into Obama.
Man, could this go terribly awry. Grab the popcorn (and the duct tape).
January 13th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
“Maybe now that they are burning Obama’s picture, liberals will think that the Iranians are racist and will finally want to do something about the country. Maybe they’ll issue them a strongly-worded letter or something.
”
Good one! I should not make light of this situation, but this sure is entertaining.
January 13th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
someone should do a post on this (cutting the payroll tax as an alternative “stimulus” proposal):
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTM1ZmU2MWYzOTk5Nzc4MGZjZmNmNjY3YjExZjMzN2I=
January 13th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Damn right! Stupid liberals!!!
January 13th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Someone should send this to DailyKos.
These nuts aren’t just the enemies of neocon policy or George W. Bush. They are the enemies of America.
January 13th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
I hold little faith that Pres Obama will implement policies that actually advance our country towards freedom and away from socialism, but this kind of nonsense should be strongly condemned whenever it occurs. The insult is intended for the US, NOT Pres Obama alone.
January 13th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
I hold little faith that Pres Obama will implement policies that actually advance our country towards freedom and away from socialism, but this kind of nonsense should be strongly condemned whenever it occurs. The insult is intended for the US, NOT Pres Obama alone.
January 13th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Snark aside, I don’t get your point. Are you seriously saying you are in favor of military action against Iran?
Like America doesn’t have enough problems to deal with… An insignificant protest in Iran is just that – insignificant.
January 13th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Should we really be surprised that McCain was right and Obama was wrong? Of course not…..
January 13th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Right, we aren’t going to bomb a country because they burns some posters or flags – though it does say much about their nature and sentiments – rather because this hatred can pose very real dangers to the country. Avoiding war when the situation calls for action tends to only benefit your enemies and ultimately is only a prolonging of the inevitable. Unless the government is ready to play some very heavy diplomatic arm-twisting, war sooner, rather than later, would be preferable.
January 13th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
I am interested to see what Obama does about Irianian development of domestic military industry and naval build-up in the Persian gulf.
January 13th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
I’m not calling for a bombing over the protest.
I’m just using it as a springboard to rant about Iran.
January 13th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
“The insult is intended for the US, NOT Pres Obama alone.” Yes that is the whole point. Liberals thought ‘if only we can get rid of Mr. Bush, our country will be respected in the world again.’ Yeah, some change.
January 13th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Gee Alex, its almost like you want everyone to ignore the fact that its not just Obama and the liberals who seek to change the failed Bush polices toward Iran (please feel free to jump in here and explain how the policies of the past 8 years have done anything other than greatly strengthen Iran’s strategic position).
The Obama commitment to active diplomacy is also supported by Sec. Gates – long before an Obama presidency and his role in it were forseen. And by many others whose approach to foreign policy is to advance American interests most efficiently, rather than use the foreign stage merely for strutting, posturing, and playing tough, irrespective of the length of time that such an approach continues to fail.
January 13th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
MPC –
Just like in World War I for the European powers, right? I mean, the worst thing they could have done was to have waited to have that war – that was all such a good idea and worked out so well.
Or Vietnam for America? Or with the Soviet Union and American in the cold war (especially ‘46-’63)? Or with North Korea and the U.S. in the last couple decades?
In the vast majority of cases, not going to war is preferable.
January 13th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
And who are these people anyway?
We see a picture with 6 people in it, out of a country of 65 million, and we actually get people in this comment section pretending that this is proof that an Obama presidency (yet to even begin!) cannot change the general attitude of the rest of the world toward America.
Seriously, sometimes watching the conservative mind at work is downright scary!
January 13th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
“Seriously, sometimes watching the conservative mind at work is downright scary!” Yeah, we are even more scary than HAMAS. Haha. Sometimes, I wonder from which woodwork you come from Mr. Tano.
January 13th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
The problem is that the average American won’t see this. Why . . . the liberal media can’t allow their beloved Messiah to be disparaged! Maybe, (although I don’t have a lot of hope for it), just maybe, liberals will learn the lions won’t ever understand the lambs enough to stop eating them. It’s only when the lambs use grenades, mortars, tanks, 50-caliber machine gun fire, bunker-buster missiles, and a few well-placed rocket bombs will the lions begin to understand.
January 13th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
“Seriously, sometimes watching the conservative mind at work is downright scary!”
Listen, you’re pretty much stopped contributing substantively and seem now only to be here to insult us. It’s not the a different viewpoint isn’t welcome, but going on a conservative blog just to abuse conservatives is a little boorish. I don’t troll around DailyKos and other liberal communities just to insult liberals.
January 13th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Make no mistake, be it Democrat or Republican, hopefully after all the briefings Obama will see the threat to this country…That when peaceful measures justify the means, so be it…When not, we mean business and stand our ground against terrorists…. Obama is our President, we will support and hope that he will succeed…Be it Democrat or Republican, WE ARE AMERICANS…..Republicans can play fair…..
January 13th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
“WE ARE AMERICANS” Yes we are, I just resent the fact that a small per centage of the population did not realize this during the Bush years. Let’s try to treat Mr. Obama a little better than certain Democrats treated our current President.
January 13th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Bravo Ohio,
Now that Dems got some measure of revenge for how Clinton was treated in the 90s, maybe both sides can stand down and get over it already.
Actually, that was one of the themes of Obama’s campaign – getting past the incessant petty bickering that seemed to have its roots in the different boomer factions of the 60s.
January 13th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Yes, Mr. Obama is a post-Boomer by age, but I’m waiting for him to change the channel. As for revenge for the Clinton years, please I do not remember calling Mr. Clinton a war criminal.
January 13th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
22-
But many (lunatics) called him a killer!
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp
January 13th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
22
Well, Clinton wasn’t a war criminal, so there is that. Approving the use of torture, which Bush has admitted doing, and allowing that mentality to seep through the chain such that things like Abu Ghraib happen – those are, in fact, violations of international conventions of war – which is what makes something a war crime.
But Clinton was certainly called everything else in the book. Starting with the standard rightwing view that he is not “my president”. Or the veiled threats, not only from blowhard entertainers, but from a sitting Senator, that the President better not visit his state. Or 6 years, and two prosecutors, dedicated to finding something somewhere by which to charge the president with some crime – and finding nothing (except finally the Monica thing). Or the absolute lunacy of the wingnuts who literally started militia movements to oppose our goverment, culminating in the biggest act of home-grown terrorism against our own people.
Need I go on?
January 13th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Yes, Tano, the children in Waco were terrorists, haha. Oh, I’m sorry, they are not from Gaza.
“Or the absolute lunacy of the wingnuts who literally started militia movements to oppose our goverment, culminating in the biggest act of home-grown terrorism against our own people.” Right it was all a GOP conspiracy. Haha, just like 9/11. Yes, please entertain us some more.
January 13th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Tano, you are really a certifiable nut-job. I hear the revolutionary guard is hiring. As you are an Obama supporter, I presume you are unemployed, so send them a resume……the Rev. Guard loves apologists.
Ugh…
January 13th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
friends,
plAse help us
January 13th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Thank you Mr. Lorelli!!! May GOD Bless you for defending the honor of both our country and party from these characters!
January 13th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
bill clinton’s war crimes:
his neglect of terrorist networks and his multiple refusals to attack bin laden
his undeclared war conducted in kosovo
black hawk down
the bombing of iraq, a country as michael moore says, never attacked or threatened the US
January 13th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
dont forget his non-action following a direct attack against the USS Cole, bill clinton ignored an act of war, endangering every single american servicemen.
combined with his sending billions in tax dollars to n. korea to get them to give up nukes, which they never did. bribes dont work, but the left never learns.
January 13th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Yes max, what is good for the Goose is good for the Gander, but I’m sure these pieces of work will come up with some silly excuse for their failures.
January 13th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
26 –
What on earth are you ranting about Kristofer? Revolutionary guard?
And are you saying that 53% of Americans are unemployed?
Are you on drugs today or something?
January 13th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
I agree- it’s not that I’m glad to see it, but it IS interesting how the US is suddenly supposed to be so much more liked by “the world” than under mean old Bush. This is the problem with liberalism as a whole- it’s based on an alternate reality.
January 13th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
No the number so far is 7.2%, not 53%.
January 13th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
billy/max,
The ultimate was Clinton listening to the Kampala police chief and his orders to bomb the pharma. plant in Sudan, killing all those people.
Clinton was willing to act on bad intelligence and bomb Sudan, but he would not go after bin laden.
go figure….
January 13th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Well said Brian, I’m glad somebody loves our great country!
January 13th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Tano, me on drugs? We all know who you are….
You are that 25ish year old guys, who lives with his single aunt and her 15 cats, who smokes pot before breakfast, who wears the same Bob Marley shirt each day, who spends his afternoons on Conservative blogs, lecturing Conservatives with your ‘Rage Against the Machine” political views, while polishing your bong collection, printing pictures of Hugo Chavez and texting your underage girlfriend…
Get a job and stop defending Iranian anti-semitism and anti-Americanism.
January 13th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Mitt Romney and Ron Paul are speaking at CPAC.
January 13th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Gee, trying to follow the meanderings of the conservative mind.
Now we have two commenters who take the opposite track – the problem isn’t so much Bush being called a war criminal – its the failure to make the case that Clinton was a war criminal.
billy seems to think that Clinton’s failure to respond to the Cole incident makes him a war criminal. Since that happened in the waning months of Clinton’s term, with the final report on culpability on coming out in Dec., I guess billy would have to go along with at least some war-criminal culpability for the new president too.
Plus I guess he is also claiming that Ronald Reagan was a war criminal because of his non-response to the murder of 240+ marines in Beirut.
And is giving bribes to the N. Koreans some kind of war crime???
Max is even better. He throws some flat-out lies into the mix.
Refusual to attack bin Laden? Hello…Clinton did attack binLaden, missed him by half and hour, or so the story goes.
“Neglect of terrorist networks” – even if true (which it obviously aint) may be terrible leadership, but it is not a war crime.
Black hawk down? A war crime committed by Clinton? Where to begin with something like that! Better not to…
And finally, “bombing of Iraq”. Max thinks this is a war crime. So I guess from Max’s point of view, the ENTIRE INVASION of Iraq by Bush must also be a war crime.
See guys, I’m just pointing to the ADMITTED violations of the Torture Conventions being a rather unambguous war crime. Your own friends here take it much further.
January 13th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
and Tano…Clinton left our troops in Somalia, underarmed, without proper air cover and under the control of a UN? Pakistani General.
January 13th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
14 SteveS,
Don’t take it to mean that we should blow up anyone we feel like at the moment – that simply isn’t sound policy. But as a general rule, when your enemy threatens you, buying time is indeed a very costly undertaking. Throughout history, nations and rulers that believe that they can defer national threats from enemy powers by delay tend only to make the situation worse. If you are in fact able to defeat the enemy power and thus ensure national security, by all means do it sooner. Right now one could argue that with Iraq and Afghanistan Iran would be an overextension and overinvolvement. That I can understand. But that being said I think we ought to make ourselves ready and capable enough to take down Iranian power should the opportunity call.
January 13th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
“Refusual to attack bin Laden? Hello…Clinton did attack binLaden, missed him by half and hour, or so the story goes.” The key word is story.
Sometimes, I wish I could be a blunt as you Kristofer; way to fix those jokers. I fail to understand why they hate our country, democracy and Western Civilization.
January 13th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Who added Petraeus over to the left side? It doesn’t come across as the political type and who knows if he’s even a Republican. Adding him and Barbour in my opinion was dumb neither of them will probably even enter. I say just clear the left side until people actually start getting in. I guess Mr.Obama’s message of Hope and Change failed to reach Iran.
January 13th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
OHIO, you are doing a fine job representing our country.
January 13th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
40
DO you have any idea what we mean when we use the term “war crime”?
It does not refer to a stupid or calamitous strategic decision in war. It refers to command decisions that violate international law – on torture, the treatment of civilians or combatants, things like that.
Clinton didn’t “leave our troops” in any condition. They were part of a mission that the administration was fully engaged in. The troops were adequatly manned and armed for the missions they were engaged in – unfortnuatly as the situation deteriorated, new actions became necessary in downtown Mogadishu, and at the point there was a failure of intellegence regarding the military capabilities of the warlord they were going after. That is why the specific units were undermanned and outgunned that day.
And they were NOT under control of any Pakistani general. They were under American leadership, at all levels up the chain.
Where do you get this stuff?
January 13th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Thank you very much Kristofer.
January 13th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
45,
do not obtain your knowledge from a movie. The film ignored the role of the Pakistan military.
TF Ranger was operating under UN directives which established UNOSOM II, a nation building mission, and Resolution 837 which called for the arrest and trial of those responsible for the ambush of Pakistani peacekeepers the previous June.
January 13th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Oh man, I cannot take it anymore, we are being lectured to by the liberals on International law. It would be nice if they followed such law.
January 13th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Kristofer,
I dont get my information from movies. That the entire mission was done in fulfillment of UN directives does not in any manner indicate that the UN had military command of US soldiers. They did not.
Here is a research paper, done by the Air Command and Staff College on the role of TF Ranger and all that happened that day, and beforehand.
LINK
One of their minor findings was some blame for the political leadership for not providing enough armor, but they also make it clear that this grew out of a massive intelligence failure as to the capabilities of the warlords, as well as mistakes at all levels of the operation.
Once again – where is the war crime here?
And if you want to focus on the lack of armor, then, my god, you would have to be one of the loudest voices calling George Bush a war criminal – for the lack of adequatly armored humvees has cost the lives of hundreds of our soldiers and horrific injury to thousands.
January 13th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
I think its become pretty clear that Obama’s first priorities are going to be protecting terrorists and helping communists. He wants to close Gitmo AND ease restrictions on Cuba…
January 13th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
#49 Tano,
you are arguing with yourself???
in #40, I said;
in #45 you said;
Now you say:
Which is it Tano? Who are you arguing with? You cannot make a point, research after the fact, then change and still argue?
You are an example of why Liberals position our nation under threat when they hold political power.
January 13th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Tano
To aid you in your efforts to understand the “conservative” mind, please remember that Kristofer Lorelli is the resident nut case and does not represent (I pray) a very wide range of maturity or political wisdom on the conservative side.
January 13th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Fredsfighter,
Have you gotten your 2009 Sarah Palin calendar yet? They are selling out as fast as fred Thompson’s Presidential campaign…
http://www.atlasbooks.com/marktplc/02503.htm
January 13th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Huh?
Kristofer. May I suggest you actually read the report I linked for you? I know its long and academic and all that. It requires patience and thinking, and might burst a few of your bubbles, but it really would be worth it.
The troops were adequatly manned and armed for the missions that they were engaged in. As is obvious from the fact that they successfully completed missions up until that fateful day. There were new facts that came into play at that point – moving into downtown, the stronghold of the warlord. The intellegence was faulty as to the capabilites of the warlord. That may be a fault of the political leadership to some extent, not having built up an adequate intel operation, but remember, that type of a criticism would land on the previous presidents docket, given that all this went down in Clinton’s first 8 months.
Looking back, there is criticism that not more armor was supplied to the mission, but given what the poltical leadership had to work with in terms of intellegence, and the recommendations of senior military leadership, it is rather ridiculous to characterize Clinton as leaving our troops underarmed. Maybe a valid criticism would be not to expand their mission beyond the capabilites, but it seems that his military advisors were telling him that they could take on these new tasks.
But on a larger scale, I really wonder what you are driving at here. Are you still pretending that whatever Clinton’s role here, it should be called a “war crime”? Or have you given up that silliness and are just on an anti-Clinton rant.
And if that is so, I REALLY wonder what you are thinking. Lets accept your charge for a moment. Clinton was criminally negligent for some aspects of the Mogadishu operation. He left a task force undermanned and poorly equipped (I’m accepting your characterization only for the purpose of this argument). If that is so, how many thousands of times worse is George Bush in terms of taking this country to war grossly undermanned and inadequatly equipped?
Seriously, your entire line of argument, if accepted, would make the case, thousands of times more strongly than I have ever done, that George Bush is a criminal of some type – a war criminal by your definition, or at least criminally negligent.
Is that your intention, or are you just hopelessly confused?
January 13th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Tano,
I never said Clinton was; “criminally negligent”…
As well, I also believe President Bush was negligent. He should have liberated Lybia and Syria first, before Iraq.
January 13th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
#21 “Now that Dems got some measure of revenge for how Clinton was treated in the 90s, maybe both sides can stand down and get over it already.”
Tano, this statement leaves me with several questions. Are you endorsing a tit-for-tat mentality, or are you just trying to be realistic as to how people should react? If the former, we could go on and on about past grievances (some you would consider legit, some I would consider legit). If the latter, I’m afraid that’s not how humans work. We only stop a behavior we’ve engaged in (in this case, character assassination) when the costs outweigh the benefits (doing so would end up causing people to lose, not win, elections). The entire revenge thing goes on and on until the above condition is met.
As for the discussion on war crimes, I think it’s absurd to accuse Pres Clinton OR Pres Bush of war crimes. Poor decision-making, perhaps, or poor intelligence. Not a war crime. Failure to respond to an act of war isn’t a war crime (though it IS a dangerous course for nat’l security), so Pres Clinton’s off the hook. Being unprepared for a war you have involved yourself in isn’t a war crime, so both Pres Clinton and Pres Bush are off the hook there.
#24 “Approving the use of torture, which Bush has admitted doing, and allowing that mentality to seep through the chain such that things like Abu Ghraib happen – those are, in fact, violations of international conventions of war – which is what makes something a war crime.”
Approving torture? Under what definition? You must be talking of waterboarding, which is done under circumstances that pose very little physical risk to the prisoner (though the psychological strain is very strong, hense why it’s an interrogation tactic). I don’t buy that it’s torture. Sleep deprivation? Specifically allowed in the Geneva Conventions (speaking of which, none of the prisoners meet the criteria for GC protections anyway). Abu Ghraib? The incidents reported weren’t even the normal events at that prison, much less a systematic mentality that made every prisoner fair game. The offenders were brought to justice, and there were efforts at compensation.
Here’s where we don’t see eye-to-eye. War is not just some theoretical, mildly uncomfortable hell, which we can just add a few more cushions to the prisoners’ cells, offer better foods, and make sure they’re never uncomfortable. War is Hell, and efforts to soften its effects destroy the capability of the combatant to fight effectively. Efforts to soften the effects (usually one-sided) through lawsuits and overly burdensome rules of engagement reduce the ability to end a war quickly and save lives.
January 13th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
“The insult is intended for the US, NOT Pres Obama alone.” Yes that is the whole point. Liberals thought ‘if only we can get rid of Mr. Bush, our country will be respected in the world again.’ Yeah, some change.
Exactly!
Gee Alex, its almost like you want everyone to ignore the fact that its not just Obama and the liberals who seek to change the failed Bush polices toward Iran (please feel free to jump in here and explain how the policies of the past 8 years have done anything other than greatly strengthen Iran’s strategic position).
I agree. Bush’s policy toward Iran has been completely feckless. Obama’s will be, too.
January 13th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
International conventions like Geneva were written after and designed for conflicts like WWII and earlier – when there were formal declarations of war, when POWs weren’t executed by beheading without trials, and when uniformed armies were clearly recognizable.
What we need are new treaties for a new era and new conflicts, one that doesn’t protect terrorists who don’t recognize international law and who hide behind innocents.
We should be able to do whatever we need to to get the information we need to put them out of business and to protect American lives. If that means enhanced interrogation techniques/torture/whatever – then so be it. You do what you have to do to protect the nation.
January 13th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
56 – “Are you endorsing a tit-for-tat mentality, or are you just trying to be realistic as to how people should react?’
Neither. I am being realistic as to how people do react. And yes, I think it possible that behavior can change, and I agree that it will be because the incentives have changed.
Obama made “changing the tone” a major theme of his campaign. He has caught a lot of heat, and some vitriol, from the hardliners on the left for not pursuing every ounce of revenge. And he has been rewarded with election. I am not saying that that is the only reason, or even the main one, but in the simple calculus that so often goes on in the political world, “changing the tone” is now correlated with winning, and that might make the prophesy self fulfilling.
Waterboarding is torture, under any definition. It is drowning. Not simulated drowning. It is drowning. Water taken into the lungs interfering with oxygen uptake. If not controlled effectivly, it leads to very quick death. I dont know how you can say it entails very little physical risk.
Abu Ghraib entails far more than the pictures of naked pyramids. The guards there were under specific instruction to soften the prisoners up for their interrogations, and given no guidance as to what that was supposed to entail. We have all heard of the CDs worth of images of far more horrific stuff that have not been made public. The individual soldiers prosecuted were the scapegoats for a system of brutality and torture (yes, prisoners DIED there – and most all prisoners were innocent of any crime), that represented a gross dereliction going all the way to the top.
Your plea for brutality in war is misplaced. Declining to torture prisoners, a policy the US has held throughout the world wars and subsequent wars, does not reduce the capability of combatants to fight effectively. No one is talking about coddling prisoners, just treating them with basic humanity – the way we would want our prisoners treated. Not that they necessarily would be, but we are the ones that are supposed to hold up the standards of the civilized world. The mentality of inflicting brutality because the other side would is the mentality of the lowest common denominator – the abandonment of any effort to stand up for principles.
January 13th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
“We should be able to do whatever we need to to get the information we need to put them out of business and to protect American lives. If that means enhanced interrogation techniques/torture/whatever – then so be it. You do what you have to do to protect the nation.”
Glad to see your Christian values up and running, Matthew. Cuz Jesus would have been a big proponent of torture.
January 13th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Glad to see your Christian values up and running, Matthew. Cuz Jesus would have been a big proponent of torture.
Who cares what Jesus would have wanted? This was the same guy who said that we should turn the other cheek when someone hits us. The far-left is the side representing Jesus’ values.
I want to win a war.
January 13th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
“What we need are new treaties for a new era and new conflicts, one that doesn’t protect terrorists who don’t recognize international law and who hide behind innocents.”
That is so ridiculous. Its like saying that we should not have criminal law because criminals don’t respect the law.
That is the whole point of having laws. You make laws precisely because some people are acting brutally and unacceptably. You make the law to draw a line for all those tempted to act that way – that if they do they make themselves pariahs, subject to punishment. And of course, you use the law to inflict rule-based punishment for the offenders.
Your logic seems to be that laws only exist amongst people who are not inclined to break them in the first place. Thats kinda silly.
“We should be able to do whatever we need to..”
Thats what everyone says. How do you think Saddam justified drilling holes in people’s head? What you are arguing for is not some new type of international law, but no law at all.
Because I can assure you, no other nation is going to agree to any constraints on their behavior if America takes the position that we will not be constrained ourselves.
January 13th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
I don’t know how you can say most of them were innocent of any crime. You think the US walks into Shopping malls and grabs people just for fun? Just today there was a report that more than sixty of the people who we’ve released from Guantanamo – who would otherwise still be sitting safely in a jail cell if it were for the liberal, terrorists-first agenda that you partake in – have rejoined the terrorist ranks.
Is Torture pretty or nice or good? Not at all – but you do what you have to to protect American lives.
January 13th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
63
I was referring to Abu Ghraib, not Gitmo. The great majority in AG were innocents who were swept up in sweeps.
At Gitmo, the percentage of innocents was much lower. OF course, since there was no mechanism for them to even argue their innocence, its a pretty hellish situation too.
January 13th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
“Your plea for brutality in war is misplaced. Declining to torture prisoners, a policy the US has held throughout the world wars and subsequent wars, does not reduce the capability of combatants to fight effectively. No one is talking about coddling prisoners, just treating them with basic humanity – the way we would want our prisoners treated. Not that they necessarily would be, but we are the ones that are supposed to hold up the standards of the civilized world. The mentality of inflicting brutality because the other side would is the mentality of the lowest common denominator – the abandonment of any effort to stand up for principles.”
This is something I can COMPLETELY agree with Tano on. Our nobility is derived from our willingness to extend human rights to even the darkest and most undeserving souls. They believe in a culture of death, and we show them the righteousness of a culture that loves and celebrates life. The fact that we understand that and they can’t is why were are morally superior, and we lose that superiority when we stoop to their level.
Torture does not make Americans safer. Torture does not protect our troops. Torture does not elicit sound intelligence. Torture does not expedite the war on terror. That is why it has been U.S. policy NOT to torture, at least until this administration.
January 13th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
So what? You want to take the terrorists and settle for name, rank, and serial number? You want to let them keep the secrets of locations and plans and whatever else that could endanger hundreds, thousands, or even millions of Americans? What do you think the damage of a nuke in Times Square, or Downtown LA, or Pennsylvania Ave. would be?
You have to get the information you need to save American lives, and if you have to use water boarding to do that, that is what you do.
I’m not talking about organized war, where you have uniformed armies who fight on an open battlefield and who respect American POWs. I’m not talking about national militarys with clear chains of command, codes that we can crack to get he info we need, etc.
How do you propose we protect the country and break AQ and other Terrorist networks if we can’t get intelligence?
January 13th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Torture does not elicit sound intelligence
There are contradicting reports on this. George Tenet and Michael Scheuer have both said that waterboarding has produced sound intelligence.
I say that we err on the side of caution: if someone’s been on a jihad against the United States, then we don’t take mercy on ‘em.
January 13th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Interestingly enough, our lack of resolve to do whatever it takes is seen through the lens of Arab culture as weakness. “Why aren’t they doing all they can to promote their side? Why won’t they take decisive action?” We’re seen as being more vulnerable by exercising all of the restraint that we can.
Just something to consider.
January 13th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
“Torture does not make Americans safer. Torture does not protect our troops. Torture does not elicit sound intelligence. Torture does not expedite the war on terror.”
What are you basing this on? Your years of experience as a military interrogator? Or the testimony of the more left-leaning generals who break military policy to make a political statement?
===
“That is why it has been U.S. policy NOT to torture, at least until this administration.”
OR it could be because conflicts were different. AQ doesn’t have a central intelligence Bureau that we can hack into to get the information. This isn’t Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Different time. Different Conflict. Different Rules.
If we are using “torture” we are doing it for a reason – and unless you believe that Americans or the President are just evil, unkind SOBs, that reason must be because it provides some benefit.
January 13th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
If the 2012 GOP candidate calls for regime change in Iran, he or she is likely to attract a lot of voters weary of appeasement. One of George Bush’s great achievements was instituting enhanced interrogation techniques including waterboarding, Republicans need to embrace this positive legacy.
January 13th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Matthew,
Its time to turn off the “24″.
We do not face situations where a nuke is primed to go off in Times Square, and the one piece of information that we need to prevent is lodged in the brain of some terrorist that we are in the process of coddling. And even if it were the case, and we tortured the terrorist, I imagine they would resist to the death, having been trained to do so, and loving death etc. Or if they broke, they could give false information to send us elsewhere while bomb went off.
Funny how the loudest opponents of torture tend to be military officers, while the loudest proponents tend to be these feckless right-wing young’uns, more intent on proving their manhood then thinking through policy.
January 13th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
“As well, I also believe President Bush was negligent. He should have liberated Lybia and Syria first, before Iraq”
My goodness don’t some of you get it? Neoconservatism is partly to blame for the downfall of Republicans in the past 2 elections. We can’t and shouldn’t try to wage war on every nation with a bad man in office. It’s time for a more realistic approach to things.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Kristofer, Matthew K, Alex Knepper and JA Pruce, thank you all for defending our fine country and our President against such a trashing. It is frustrating in deed to reason with such characters. They have no clue what a great country this is and what we stand for. It quite sickening in deed to listen to such clueless characters who are over the top in trashing our freedom and liberties.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
I’m going to side with Tano on this. Besides torture being of questionable value in obtaining information, we are intent after all on working with the people in the Middle East, not destroying them. The worst thing we could do is to show what they (and just about anyone else) would consider a profound disrespect. It arouses as expected hatred, and a people that hate us are a people that we can never really trust. Foreign influence is best maintained by benevolence and respect for deep sensibilities, avoiding unnecessary confrontations combined with a willingness to tackle those dangers which do crop up. I don’t believe in making people who could be our allies into enemies by offending them needlessly.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
MPC:
Fine, side with him on torture, but please don’t side with him with his Antisemitism and other such unpatriotic non-sense.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
No, on that I don’t (I honestly haven’t read all 70-odd comments to know, either), merely on torture
January 13th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
OhioJoe,
I thought you ran away from this discussion a while ago, when we started using multi-syllabic words.
How dare you accuse me of anti-semitism and trashing of this country, you absolute mindless slime. What a perfect example of a slave mentality you are – someone who has managed not to even understand, much less internalize, what freedom, or this country are all about.
You would have us refuse to ever criticize any policy that our country undertakes – is that your position? The Hitlers and Stalins of the world went to bed every night dreaming that their country could consist of people with the same mentality as you.
We have a democracy here. We accept as absolute principles that all people are entitled to their opinion, have the god-given right to express that opinion, and most importantly, that the country is made infinitly better through the competition of ideas, rather than slavish acceptance of the dictates of the leaders.
It boils my blood to even have to say this, you arse whole, but I love my country as much as you do. In fact, I think I love it a whole lot more, because I am willing to dedicate the energy and time to use my brain, to think critically about my governments policies, with the hope that my small voice, in some small way, can make things better.
You are a lazy sob – you find your little political leader, and no matter what they say, you support it. Am I being unfair? I doubt it. Because if you had the slightest instinct to actually THINK like a free man, then you would respect the efforts of people like me, whether you agreed with my conclusions or not.
As for anti-semitism, this is every bit as pathetic as the anti-patriot charge. To be opposed to the policies of the right-wing political parties in Israel has nothing to do, whatsoever, with antagonism toward the Jewish people. Its the cheapest kind of bs propaganda imaginable. Its real purpose is to try to shut down debate by delegitimizing the debater – a form of intellectual thuggery. And you do neither Israel nor the United States any benefit by engaging in your private little efforts to keep people from critically discussing policy alternatives. Its not like the current policies have done anything but give Israel a generation of violence, with no hope in sight. One really wonders what your goal is here, for it is hard to believe that you really care much about what happens over there.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Tano needs to be kicked.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Nah. I don’t think he should be kicked. He’s expressing his free speech. Imagine if Kristofer went to DKos and started promoting Palin in every single one of their threads. They’d scream for him to be kicked, just like with Tano here. The difference is that they would probably ban Kristofer anyway, Bill of Rights or not.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Of course that doesn’t necessarily apply to privately owned web sites.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
“Kristofer, Matthew K, Alex Knepper and JA Pruce, thank you all for defending our fine country and our President against such a trashing. It is frustrating in deed to reason with such characters. They have no clue what a great country this is and what we stand for. It quite sickening in deed to listen to such clueless characters who are over the top in trashing our freedom and liberties.”
Geez, I really hate to side with Tano twice in a thread, but Ohio, this is pretty mindless. No one is trashing our freedoms or liberties. No one is being anti-American. Actually, a couple of us are trying to argue BECAUSE of America’s greatness and BECAUSE of what we stand for, torture shouldn’t be part of U.S. policy.
Criticizing one of Bush’s policies is not tantamount to “trashing” him or the country.
Go back to listening to Michael Savage.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Tano has used rather filthy language to “express his free speech.”
I repeat.
Tano needs to be kicked, or warned that persistence in using such language will get him kicked.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
“Tano has used rather filthy language to “express his free speech.”
I repeat.
Tano needs to be kicked, or warned that persistence in using such language will get him kicked.”
Um, OhioJoe directed some pretty awful – and totally erroneous – accusations towards him. Perhaps OhioJoe should be warned about calling people anti-Semitic and unpatriotic? I’d rather be an “arse whole” than anti-Semitic or unpatriotic any day.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
“Actually, a couple of us are trying to argue BECAUSE of America’s greatness and BECAUSE of what we stand for, torture shouldn’t be part of U.S. policy.”
Which is all fine and well – until your determination to extend rights to those who want to kill us leads to a terrorist attack that results in thousands of deaths.
====
Look, I don’t know if enhanced interrogation works or not. I’m not an intelligence expert or a military strategist – but neither is Tano, or anyone else trying to tie the hands of the military and intelligence agencies. But I don’t think we should be barring the CIA or military from using techniques that save American lives.
IF they work, then they should be used. If they didn’t, there would not even be a debate about it.
====
Also – about the generals who opposed “torture” publicly…
Have you ever noticed that the members of the military who go out and make political statements are, by a huge majority, liberal, while most of the armed forces is dominated by Conservatives, or, at the least, those who support the war and the methods used?
If you were to take a poll of all the generals and the intelligence experts in the country, I bet you would find a view much different from that advanced by the few men and women who use their uniforms to promote a political agenda.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Win M:
Have you read some of his other posts? He did not just join us today.
“Go back to listening to Michael Savage.” I have not listened to him for some time, but of the two, I’d rather.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
And really, what is torture?
Mental manipulation? Putting a prisoner near a barking dog to scare them into answering a question? Dunking their head underwater in a way that creates no lasting physical damage?
I’m not advocating cutting off fingers – but some people want to expand the definition of torture to include just about everything that compels a captive to share information that they wouldn’t otherwise release.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Well said MatthewK, these liberals complain how loud music, but raping innocent civilians is not a bother to them.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Here is a good test: Would you consider any of the following “torture”?
1) Making a terrorist stand in a bright, cold room without clothes.
2) Playing loud music or other unpleasant sounds for long periods of time.
3) Water boarding.
4) Threatening to sick a dog on a terrorist.
5) Making a terrorist stand naked while they have pictures taken.
4) Threatening a terrorist with pigs or other “unclean” things.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Well, none of these tactic are as bad as Hamas’ tactics.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
“I’d rather be an “arse whole” than anti-Semitic or unpatriotic any day.” I’ll agree with that one. Do you think I use this language everyday?
January 13th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Question for the Chickenhawks:
When was the last time Iran invaded anybody?
January 13th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
“Question for the Chickenhawks:
When was the last time Iran invaded anybody?” Who do you think is funding HAMAS? Did anyone of you guys watch Kristofer’s video? Oh, yeah, I think I know the answer.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
“When was the last time Iran invaded anybody?”
When was the last time they threatened the US, Israel, US interests, or another ally or ally’s interests?
January 13th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
When was the last time Iran invaded anybody?
“Question for all of you damn anti-Chamberlain people: when was the last time Hitler invaded anyone?”
“Afghanistan never invaded anyone!”
Matters of war and peace are a little more complicated than who’s invading who.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
“Afghanistan never invaded anyone!” Yeah, Somebody remind us what are troops are doing there. Haha!
January 13th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
MatthewK et al.,
“When was the last time they threatened the US, Israel, US interests, or another ally or ally’s interests?”
Now that’s vague. Our ally, Canada, may have an interest in importing bananas from Panama. I wouldn’t invade Panama over it, though. So I assume you meant, “national security interest.”
So what is the vital national security threat that Iran TRULY poses to the US. And when I say “true,” I mean a legit threat, not one that simply exists in the fevered imaginations of the “Cakewalk” crowd who treat warfare like a game of Risk.
What is the threat that YOU PERSONALLY are willing to go to Tehran and die to defend against?
January 13th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
“So what is the vital national security threat that Iran TRULY poses to the US. And when I say “true,” I mean a legit threat”
Iran is developing Nukes – and they won’t have a problem passing the weapons off to terrorists who want to put them in the middle of our largest cities.
Whether or not they currently have missiles that can hit the US or not, who knows, but they can certainly reach at least part of the way into Europe, and they can DEFFINATELY hit Israel…
January 13th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Alex,
In your world, we live perpetually in 1939. Any leader you don’t like = Hitler. Any country you don’t like = Germany, and anyone who opposes the annihilation of said country = Chamberlain.
It gets really old. You remind me of the old proverb, “When all you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail.”
But please, stand by your analogy, and tell me how Iran is capable of overrunning all of Europe, or even “just” the Middle East.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
“Now that’s vague. Our ally, Canada, may have an interest in importing bananas from Panama. I wouldn’t invade Panama over it, though. So I assume you meant, “national security interest.”” No I, do not think we will invade Canada over bananas. I can here the cry now “no blood for bananas!”
January 13th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
MatthewL,
“Iran is developing Nukes – and they won’t have a problem passing the weapons off to terrorists”
So you are willing to go die to prevent Iran from getting nukes, since you are convinced they will automatically hand them over to terrorists?
January 13th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
“Any leader you don’t like = Hitler.” With all due respect MWS, if you had been here the last few days or so, I doubt you would level such a charge against Alex.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
It’s a well known fact that the early neocons were liberal Democrats and Trotskyites. Here’s the part of their heritage they never lost….
Liberals are generous with other people’s money.
Neocons are brave with other people’s lives.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
MWS, please explain to me the concepts of Twelver Shi’a and Taqiyyah and then get back to me. I’ll bet anything that you don’t know what either is all about.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
MWS, apparently you don’t understand the concept of a volunteer military? Or of professional soldiering? It’s time to brace yourself psychologically for the realities of war and the nature of the enemy that we face. Calling Alex Knepper a “chickenhawk” doesn’t add anything to the discussion of whether Iran is a threat.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
The “chickenhawk” attack is always pathetic, because then it means that women cannot hold an opinion on the war, nor can the elderly, nor can the disabled, nor can homosexuals — after all, none of them can serve.
(Not) coincidentally, though, most of the active military is hawkish.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Ohio,
I haven’t been here much for a while, but I know from pervious discussions with Alex (like his proposal that we go to war with a nuclear armed Russia to keep two tiny enclaves in Georgia from self-determination) that to Alex, it is ALWAYS 1939. It’s like it’s the ONLY lesson he (sort of) learned from history.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
I use Germany in 1939 because it’s a simple analogy with a lot of punch. You’d do better to explain why it’s unlike 1939, rather than simply going “Pah! You keep saying that and I think it’s dumb!”
January 13th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Alex,
“please explain to me the concepts of Twelver Shi’a and Taqiyyah and then get back to me. I’ll bet anything that you don’t know what either is all about.”
You’d bet correctly. But then again, you’re just obfuscating.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Alex,
“apparently you don’t understand the concept of a volunteer military? Or of professional soldiering? I”
I understand. What you don’t understand is that a volunteer is….
NOT….
THE ….
SAME…
THING….
AS…
A…
MERCENARY.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
You’d bet correctly. But then again, you’re just obfuscating.
Except that I’m not, because those two concepts are essential to understanding the ideology of Ali Khamenei.
Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Alex,
“The “chickenhawk” attack is always pathetic, because then it means that women cannot hold an opinion on the war, nor can the elderly, nor can the disabled, nor can homosexuals — after all, none of them can serve.”
That’s got nothing to do with it. I didn’t ask Matthew if he is ABLE to serve. I asked him if he was willing to die to protect against this perceived threat. Willing and able are two different things. If he isn’t WILLING to die for it, and only wants OTHERS to do the dying, then I don’t think he is very convinced in his own mind of the real threat.
It’s always easier to send others to do the dying. Its always easier to raise the alarm when someone else has to die to respond to it.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
It’s a well known fact that the early neocons were liberal Democrats and Trotskyites. Here’s the part of their heritage they never lost….
Myth.
Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz and co. were quite culturally conservative and pro-capitalism, though they accepted the impracticality of dismantling the welfare state. There were obviously disagreements amongst them, but they all agreed on a robust foreign policy a la Henry “Scoop” Jackson.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Alex,
“Except that I’m not, because those two concepts are essential to understanding the ideology of Ali Khamenei.”
Khamenei can have all the ideology he wants, but as Napoleon once noted, God generally favors the big battalions. So your preening over your “insider” knowledge (that was probably glossed from National Review or the AEI website) is really irrelevant.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
That’s got nothing to do with it. I didn’t ask Matthew if he is ABLE to serve. I asked him if he was willing to die to protect against this perceived threat. Willing and able are two different things. If he isn’t WILLING to die for it, and only wants OTHERS to do the dying, then I don’t think he is very convinced in his own mind of the real threat.
Well, some people have to do the work on the academic and intellectual front, you know. Not everyone can be a soldier, or would even make a good soldier. Given my temperament and physical capabilities, I believe that I’d make a rather poor soldier, though I intend on fully understanding the threat on a substantive level, helping to educate the public, and hopefully contributing to some kind of governmental service one day in order to help combat it. There are many ways that one can contribute besides with boots on the ground, which absolutely demands a certain temperament.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Khamenei can have all the ideology he wants, but as Napoleon once noted, God generally favors the big battalions. So your preening over your “insider” knowledge (that was probably glossed from National Review or the AEI website) is really irrelevant.
It isn’t insider knowledge. I’ve just been devouring books on Islam and the Middle East.
But for your understanding, a simple glance at Wikipedia should suffice, really.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Alex,
The neocons spend other people’s lives like liberals spend other people’s money.
Same mentality, except more people die in the neocon scenario.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
“I understand. What you don’t understand is that a volunteer is….
NOT….THE ….SAME…THING….AS…A…MERCENARY.” I guess it is nothing new over the last few days, but I’m afraid you lost me, MWS.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Khamenei can have all the ideology he wants, but as Napoleon once noted, God generally favors the big battalions.
Quotes are no substitute for actual knowledge.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Alex,
I understand not everyone can or should be a soldier. But you are completely dodging my question. I didn’t ask if dying in Tehran was the best use of your immeasurable talents.
I asked if you are WILLING to die for the cause of a non-nuclear Iran. You might think your life is worth more to the cause than a dumb jock’s, but would you still be willing to give it up?
January 13th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Ohio,
“but I’m afraid you lost me, MWS.”
Alex seems to think that having a “volunteer” army means that the government has the right to spend their lives however, where ever, and for whatever cause it wants. In Alex’s world, “volunteer” means grist for the mill.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
I asked if you are WILLING to die for the cause of a non-nuclear Iran. You might think your life is worth more to the cause than a dumb jock’s, but would you still be willing to give it up?
What is this warped, perverted view of military service? Very few people who serve actually die. Would I be willing to put my life on the line at a 96% rate of living — as it has been in Iraq — in order to further the cause of a non-nuclear Iran? Well, yes. Although again: my talents are better used in the intellectual sector. But it’s not as if I’m not pushing through a pro-American cause. It’s not like I have any personal gain invested in this policy. Why would I push it if I didn’t really believe in it?
January 13th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Alex seems to think that having a “volunteer” army means that the government has the right to spend their lives however, where ever, and for whatever cause it wants. In Alex’s world, “volunteer” means grist for the mill.
Actually, that is what’s in the contract.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
“The neocons spend other people’s lives like liberals spend other people’s money.” You can replace neocons with HAMAS.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
“So you are willing to go die to prevent Iran from getting nukes, since you are convinced they will automatically hand them over to terrorists?”
Do you honestly believe that Iran could be trusted with Nuclear weapons?
And I’ve never thought much about joining the military, because, for a number of reasons, it was never really an option…
But it doesn’t matter whether or not I would join. We have a volunteer military that is comprised entirely of soldiers who have enlisted – or reenlisted – during wartime.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
I doubt that Iran would hand the weapons off to terrorists.
It would want to use it itself, probably, if it didn’t prefer to use it as leverage to attain regional hegemony in the name of Shi’a Islam.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
“Alex seems to think that having a “volunteer” army means that the government has the right to spend their lives however, where ever, and for whatever cause it wants. In Alex’s world, “volunteer” means grist for the mill.” With all due respect, I do not think we are trigger happy for the fun of it. Like other posts, the original meaning is now unfortunately lost.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
“Do you honestly believe that Iran could be trusted with Nuclear weapons?” Let’s we never have to answer that question.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
I don’t subscribe to the theory that only certain people have a right to have an opinion – or, rather, a certain opinion.
Men can only be pro-choice, since they can’t have kids. Only Gays should have an opinion on Gay Marriage. Only able-bodied people should have a pro-war stance. Only Minorities should have an opinion on affirmative action and minority empowerment.
Those arguments are complete #$%@. National political decisions – war, peace, marriage, family, taxes, race, religion, etc. – have national consequences, and everyone is entitled to have an opinion on them.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Alex,
“It’s not like I have any personal gain invested in this policy. Why would I push it if I didn’t really believe in it?”
Sure. Talk is cheap. You’re only spending “those” people’s lives. And your “96%” mentality is looking at it backwards. To those 4% it is a 100% commitment. Remember, the chicken is merely “involved” in breakfast, but the hog is “committed.” You are only willing to be involved, which makes me question how much of a threat you really think Iran is.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
“I doubt that Iran would hand the weapons off to terrorists.
It would want to use it itself, probably, if it didn’t prefer to use it as leverage to attain regional hegemony in the name of Shi’a Islam.”
In any event, you’ve not got the likes of Ahmadinejad in charge of the Middle East…not a good thing.
MAD won’t work with Iran. We either have to stop them from getting the weapons, or suffer the consequences…
January 13th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Actually, I agree with MWS: Let’s let war veterans decide what to do about Iran.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
“Sure. Talk is cheap. You’re only spending “those” people’s lives. ”
Anyone in the military today signed a contract during wartime – so they knew what they were getting into. You are “spending their lives”, yes, but with their full consent.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
please remember that Kristofer Lorelli is the resident nut case and does not represent (I pray) a very wide range of maturity or political wisdom on the conservative side.
Krisofer has displaced Gamecock? Say it isn’t so! They both deserve the honor…no need to be stingy.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Alex,
“Actually, that is what’s in the contract.”
No, the soldier takes an oath to protect and defend America, not traipse off on whatever glorious foreign adventure Alex can dream of.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Sure. Talk is cheap. You’re only spending “those” people’s lives. And your “96%” mentality is looking at it backwards. To those 4% it is a 100% commitment. Remember, the chicken is merely “involved” in breakfast, but the hog is “committed.” You are only willing to be involved, which makes me question how much of a threat you really think Iran is.
This is a stupid question, since people don’t go and “sign up to be killed.” They go to serve their country, which you denigrate by acting like there’s nothing to it except going to be “pigs for the slaughter,” or whatever you’re trying to get at, rather than working for a good cause. Those that are over there really believe in what they’re doing, and they go there because they think that their personality and temperament fit that of a soldier. I don’t question your personal commitment to the issues that you promote just because you don’t “personally” get involved in them. We live in an open society with collective decision-making. It’s my job to be informed and have an opinion on a matter. I wasn’t aware that I wasn’t allowed to hold a certain opinion legitimately unless I went and risked my life for it.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
“Actually, I agree with MWS: Let’s let war veterans decide what to do about Iran.”
…and much to his dismay, there would be overwealming support for the mission – far greater support, in fact, than from the population at-large.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
…and much to his dismay, there would be overwealming support for the mission – far greater support, in fact, than from the population at-large.
That was my point.
No, the soldier takes an oath to protect and defend America, not traipse off on whatever glorious foreign adventure Alex can dream of.
I’m not advocating a ground invasion, by the way. But if you don’t think that America has any stake in whether Iran goes nuclear, then you’re utterly deluded.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
MatthewK,
“Anyone in the military today signed a contract during wartime – so they knew what they were getting into. You are “spending their lives”, yes, but with their full consent.”
That’s really demented. So I guess you could just put all those war time volunteers on a boat and sink it for your own amusement- if you were so inclined- and it wouldn’t be wrong because HEY THEY VOLUNTEERED!!!!!!
January 13th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
“No, the soldier takes an oath to protect and defend America, not traipse off on whatever glorious foreign adventure Alex can dream of.”
You don’t believe that a nuclear Iran would be a threat to us, our allies, or our interests? Then you are a fool.
===
And, it because of those “adventures” that we have only had to defend American soil on American soil a couple times in our history.
What threat did Nazi Germany pose to us in 1941? What about Italy?
American undertakes preventative military action – sometimes after one attack to prevent more, larger attacks, and sometimes to prevent the first attack from coming.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
“Actually, I agree with MWS: Let’s let war veterans decide what to do about Iran.” Well said! Since we are on the subject, maybe somebody can answer why Public School teachers send their children to private schools, Environmentalist don’t recycle and for good measure, Ford workers drive Toyota’s. We will have to come up with fancy names to equate with Chicken Hawk.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
“What threat did Nazi Germany pose to us in 1941?”
See #98 and #106.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
“That’s really demented. So I guess you could just put all those war time volunteers on a boat and sink it for your own amusement- if you were so inclined- and it wouldn’t be wrong because HEY THEY VOLUNTEERED!!!!!!” Do you think this is all for amusement? This is not fun and games.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
“So I guess you could just put all those war time volunteers on a boat and sink it for your own amusement- if you were so inclined- and it wouldn’t be wrong”
This is when you know people are losing an argument – when there arguments become completely ridiculous.
===
Of course soldiers aren’t toys that can be discarded at will – but when we are threatened, or our interests are threatened, or our allies are threatened, the use of military force is justified.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
That’s really demented. So I guess you could just put all those war time volunteers on a boat and sink it for your own amusement- if you were so inclined- and it wouldn’t be wrong because HEY THEY VOLUNTEERED!!!!!!
Slippery slope arguments are always of dubious value precisely because one can see a difference between the top and the bottom of the slope.
If our government did that, it wouldn’t even be worth defending and I’d advocate a coup.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
I love how MWS avoids the Germany analogy because he’s sick of hearing it.
He never explains why it’s wrong. He just rants about me using it.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Alex,
“They go to serve their country, which you denigrate by acting like there’s nothing to it except going to be “pigs for the slaughter,” or whatever you’re trying to get at, rather than working for a good cause.”
No, you are the one cheapening their lives by hiding behind this “volunteer” canard. I think if American soldiers need to die, it ought to be in the actual defense of America. You think a non-nuclear Iran is worth their cheap hides, but not your precious life.
Would I be willing to die to prevent America from getting nuked? Yes. Would I be willing to die to prevent Iran from getting nukes? No. So clearly, when push comes to shove, I don’t think a nuclear Iran= America getting nuked. If I did, I would be personally willing to die to prevent it. Either you agree that a nuclear Iran does not equal a nuked America, or you are such a Chicken Hawk that you wouldn’t even be willing to die to prevent the nuking of America. In which case, your values are so warped I don’t care what you think about issues of war and peace.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
“In your world, we live perpetually in 1939. Any leader you don’t like = Hitler. Any country you don’t like = Germany, and anyone who opposes the annihilation of said country = Chamberlain.”
…those who don’t learn from history are forced to repeat it. Something that we have done many times, with increasingly higher stakes.
We tried to negotiate with Hitler, that led to WWII.
We tried to negotiate with Japan, that led to Pearl Harbor.
We tried to negotiate with the communists, which led to its entrenchment in many areas for decades.
We tried to negotiate with North Korea, they now have the Bomb.
You don’t see a pattern here? And now you want us to try and negotiate with another country that, not only is seeking nukes, but that is immune to the traditional deterrents that have worked against other nuclear powers? Communists fear death, they’ll always try to stay alive, and so Mutually assured destruction is a very effective tool. Radical Muslims welcome death, and many look forward to it. If they can provoke a nuclear conflict, its no skin off there nose.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Alex,
You SERIOUSLY need me to find for you some differences between Germany 1939 and Iran 2008? I didn’t think you seriously needed that, so I didn’t bother. But if you REALLY can’t tell the difference, just let me know, and I’d be more than willing to help.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Alright, so we all agree that America getting nuked is a bad thing…big surprise.
So let me ask this:
Assuming we allow Iran to get nukes, and recognizing that the MAD strategy won’t work with them, how do we stop the use of such weapons? Bend to their every whim? Pull all troops out of Saudi Arabia? Abandon Israel? Pay whatever price they want for oil? How far does it go?
January 13th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
MatthewK,
Actually, one could argue that negotiating with the communists was instrumental in avoiding nuclear winter, and in the peaceful overthrow of communism in eastern Europe.
Is your point in #147 that we should always go to war first, or we will be repeating the mistakes of history?
January 13th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
You SERIOUSLY need me to find for you some differences between Germany 1939 and Iran 2008? I didn’t think you seriously needed that, so I didn’t bother. But if you REALLY can’t tell the difference, just let me know, and I’d be more than willing to help.
The similarity lies in preventive action being the right course of action, obviously.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
“You SERIOUSLY need me to find for you some differences between Germany 1939 and Iran 2008? I didn’t think you seriously needed that, so I didn’t bother. But if you REALLY can’t tell the difference, just let me know, and I’d be more than willing to help.”
Of course there are some differences – Hitler, for example, was probably significantly more afraid of Death than the Iranian leaders, etc…
January 13th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Matthew,
“recognizing that the MAD strategy won’t work with them”
I totally reject that premise. If Iran’s government was that cavalier about their own lives and those of their people, we would have been in a hot war with them a LOOOOONG time ago, and so would Israel.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
No, you are the one cheapening their lives by hiding behind this “volunteer” canard. I think if American soldiers need to die, it ought to be in the actual defense of America. You think a non-nuclear Iran is worth their cheap hides, but not your precious life. Would I be willing to die to prevent America from getting nuked? Yes. Would I be willing to die to prevent Iran from getting nukes? No. So clearly, when push comes to shove, I don’t think a nuclear Iran= America getting nuked. If I did, I would be personally willing to die to prevent it. Either you agree that a nuclear Iran does not equal a nuked America, or you are such a Chicken Hawk that you wouldn’t even be willing to die to prevent the nuking of America. In which case, your values are so warped I don’t care what you think about issues of war and peace.
I happen to think that there are things worth going to war over short of America being hit with a nuclear weapon.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
“Is your point in #147 that we should always go to war first, or we will be repeating the mistakes of history?”
That negotiating with madmen rarely works, and that, in the past, negotiations have often led to the point of no return, which has forced us to accept hostile regimes.
Negotiation with the USSR did help avoid Nuclear winter, but what you forget is that the territorial expansions of Russia, which we allowed in the post-WWII years, was done well before they had the bomb. Was it right to divide Germany and North Korea down the center? Germany fell after 50 years, but North Korea is still there, and Vietnam is still communist, etc…
January 13th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Matthew,
If you really think that all the leadership in Iran (or even the bulk of it) are hard core believers who welcome death for the glory of Allah, then you aren’t cynical enough. Do you think every President or Senator who piously intones “God bless America” really believes it? Government leaders tend to have certain traits in common, no matter where they are. One of them is manipulating the sensibilities of their constituents or subjects to keep themselves in power. If you think that is unique to America, you need to rethink that.
Most of the leadership of Iran is interested in power. When jihad means death and not power for themselves, they rethink jihad.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
I totally reject that premise. If Iran’s government was that cavalier about their own lives and those of their people, we would have been in a hot war with them a LOOOOONG time ago, and so would Israel.
They are cavalier about the lives of their people — over one million people died in the Iraq-Iran War in sweeping waves of human shields, many of whom were children specifically used to detonate IEDs with symbolic “keys” to paradise around their necks, since the Grand Ayatollah proclaimed that they would be martyrs. (An ‘Ayatollah,’ by the way, in Shi’a Islam — the concept does not exist in Sunni Islam — is a learned religious authority.)
Twelver Shi’ites, such as Ali Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, believe that the apocalypse can be brought about through world chaos, where the long-vanished Mahdi, the twelfth Imam (the Shi’a equivalent to the caliph) will return and restore Islamic paradise. Taqiyyah in Shi’a Islam is the concept of deceit in order to further one’s religious faith. (Muhammad himself once said “War is deceit,” by the way.) This is why we can be sure that they’re really not making a ‘nuclear energy program’ — what sense does it make to have one in this oil-rich but otherwise poor country? Everyone and their mom knows that Iran is seeking a nuke.
So these people are rational actors, sure, but only in the framework of Shi’a Islam!
January 13th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
MWS, I for one am not advocating that we must go to war first. I am advocating that we do not tolerate Iran’s non-sense. If you have some peaceful solutions, I am all ears. I am not trying to be a smart Alec, but I am getting frustrated that many people fail to see the seriousness in what is going on in the Middle East.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
“I totally reject that premise. If Iran’s government was that cavalier about their own lives and those of their people, we would have been in a hot war with them a LOOOOONG time ago, and so would Israel.”
I didn’t say they were stupid – Iran knows that, in its current state, it is no match for the rest of the world. The only Nuclear armed country who might pick Iran over the US is Russia, and even they don’t want Tehran to have the bomb.
I said they weren’t afraid of death, I didn’t say they were open to moves that would be so clearly suicidal. Right now, Iran would be crushed in weeks or months, facing American, European, probably even Chinese invasion, but with a Nuke, the battlefield is – excuse the pun – leveled.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
If you really think that all the leadership in Iran (or even the bulk of it) are hard core believers who welcome death for the glory of Allah, then you aren’t cynical enough. Do you think every President or Senator who piously intones “God bless America” really believes it?
It’s difficult for Westerners to wrap their minds around the concept of true religious fundamentalism. The leadership of Iran is absolutely made up of hardcore believers. If you trace the history of Ruhollah Khomenei and his followers, as well as Ali Khamenei currently, both in the private and governmental sectors, there can be little doubt that they’re true believers. Equating Khamenei with morons like Huckabee who “piously intone ‘God Bless America’” is dangerous folly. Read the Qur’an, go over the Iranian leadership’s public statements, and go through the history of Iran, and see what I mean.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
“Do you think every President or Senator who piously intones “God bless America” really believes it?”
There is a big difference between asking for the blessings of the almighty on the country – which I do believe most, if not all, who use the phrase DO want – and calling for the destruction of another country in the name of religious faith.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Matthew,
Your logic is painfully flawed.
Negotiating with Hitler and Japan did not lead to war. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Its a logical fallacy, look it up.
Clearly Hitler and Japan had imperial aims that were not caused by the fact that Western nations negotiated with them. They were merely not slowed down by the diplomatic efforts.
Diplomacy is not a magic bullet that is GUARANTEED to forestall all war. Rather it is was intelligent, well intentioned people do with the hope of forestalling war. Its a non-lethal way to resolve conflict.
All human conflict is not destined, necessarily, to lead to violence. You do whatever you can to prevent violence, for war is an evil unto itself, even in those rare case where it is absolutely a necessary evil.
Our negotiations with the communists, as MWS points out, did much to obviate much conflict, to save millions of lives, and to keep the situation relatively stable for sufficient number of decades so that the commies could peacefully collapse of their own weight.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
I didn’t say they were stupid – Iran knows that, in its current state, it is no match for the rest of the world. The only Nuclear armed country who might pick Iran over the US is Russia, and even they don’t want Tehran to have the bomb.
Russia has been quite complicit in supporting Iran’s nuclear activities, and Iran would have no qualms “taking on the rest of the world” in a cold sense if it meant expanding the country’s influence.
I said they weren’t afraid of death, I didn’t say they were open to moves that would be so clearly suicidal. Right now, Iran would be crushed in weeks or months, facing American, European, probably even Chinese invasion, but with a Nuke, the battlefield is – excuse the pun – leveled.
But they are open to suicidal moves, if they can be sure that it would set the stage for the 12th Imam.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Alex,
“The similarity lies in preventive action being the right course of action, obviously.”
If that is the only similarity you can come up with then you are simply making your hypothesis your premise, with Germany providing no supporting evidence. In which case, you are learning nothing from history.
If you looked at the evidence, you would find that Germany in 1939 was a first rate military power capable of rolling over almost all of Europe. They had a government that openly espoused territorial expansion. They had the industry, the capital, the manpower, and the will to bring all of those stated goals to fruition.
Iran on the other hand, is a fifth rate military power that lacks the means and the will (of its people) to accomplish the looney tunes goals of its leader who is simply appealing to his base to maintain power.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Diplomacy is not a magic bullet that is GUARANTEED to forestall all war. Rather it is was intelligent, well intentioned people do with the hope of forestalling war. Its a non-lethal way to resolve conflict.
It can only resolve conflict if both sides want it resolved in the same manner. There can be no reconciliation between hardline Shi’a Islam and liberal democracy.
All human conflict is not destined, necessarily, to lead to violence. You do whatever you can to prevent violence, for war is an evil unto itself, even in those rare case where it is absolutely a necessary evil.
Sure, but when one side worships violence and the other is ready to avoid it at all cost, well…
Our negotiations with the communists, as MWS points out, did much to obviate much conflict, to save millions of lives, and to keep the situation relatively stable for sufficient number of decades so that the commies could peacefully collapse of their own weight.
Comparing Iran to the Communists is useless since one subscribed to a secular philosophy and the other subscribes to religious fundamentalism.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
It’s difficult for Westerners to wrap their minds around the concept of true religious fundamentalism.”
But fortunatly we have Alex to set us straight.
“The leadership of Iran is absolutely made up of hardcore believers”
Funny, but from all I hear, the Iranian people don’t believe that, seeing the leadership as old, sclerotic, power-hungry and thoroughly corrupt, the opposite of theological fanatics.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
I’m not saying that negotiating CAUSED the war, only that it greatly increased the conflict.
What would have happened if the US, Russia, France, and the UK had attacked Germany when they invaded Czechoslovakia?
January 13th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
“Funny, but from all I hear, the Iranian people don’t believe that, seeing the leadership as old, sclerotic, power-hungry and thoroughly corrupt, the opposite of theological fanatics.”
Clearly, not enough so to overthrow the govt. and install more moderate leaders…
January 13th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Alex,
“Everyone and their mom knows that Iran is seeking a nuke.”
Obviously. But so far, noone but us actually used a nuke they built. Iran knows that nuclear powers don’t get invaded. They want the same deterrence we have, so when we try to tell them how its going to be, they can tell us to go to hell (figuratively). Imagine how much latitude a nuke would give them in foreign policy. It’s not about bombing Manhatten, for goodness sake, it’s about freedom of action. When someone tells them what to do, they can tell them where to get off.
That, and not the specter of a leveled New York, is the realistic danger of a nuclear Iran. We lose diplomatic stroke.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Alex,
“There can be no reconciliation between hardline Shi’a Islam and liberal democracy.”
Just as there could be no reconciliation between hardline Communism and liberal democracy?
But that didn’t mean we had to invade the Soviet Union or communist China.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
167
Well you did say it “led to” the war, which implies it caused it. But no matter, it neither caused the war nor greatly increased it.
What Chamberlain gave away to Hitler, Hitler would have taken in a week anyway. The Munich agreement did nothing to increase or decrease the toll of the subsequent war.
What would have happened if the Allies attacked Germany? The war would have started a year earlier. Thats it.
Although if the US got involved back then (as the Republicans did everything to prevent), then maybe the war would have gone quicker, but not much. The US was not prepared in ‘38 to fight like we could in ‘43 or ‘44.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Tano,
“What Chamberlain gave away to Hitler, Hitler would have taken in a week anyway. The Munich agreement did nothing to increase or decrease the toll of the subsequent war.”
Exactly. And in point of fact, what Chamberlain “gave” to Hitler was a region that was majority German and wanted to be a part of Germany, and not Czechoslovakia. We kinda did the same thing with Kosovo. Of course when it comes to two little Russian enclaves in Georgia, Alex thinks it is worth nuclear holocaust and the annihilation of Georgia to keep South Ossesia Georgian, against the will of the South Ossesians.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
MatthewK,
You’ll have to explain to me how negotiating “greatly increases conflict.”
January 13th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Ohio,
The key to answering the question “what would Iran do with nukes” is to ask why Iran wants nukes. The answer is simple. Nuclear powers don’t get invaded and they get to sit at the grownup’s table in the international community. Remember that Iran was invaded only 20 years ago at the cost of millions of lives. I’m not suggesting that Iran has a right to nukes or should get them, I’m merely pointing out that Iran’s motives for getting nukes are not different than every other nuclear power’s. It’s not about jihad or some 54th Caliph. It’s about telling the “Great Satan” to shove off and mind his own business.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
BTW,
If a Presidential candidate- in a moment of unguarded candor- ever said what I did in #174 it would be the end of him, thanks to the cheap bravado and empty-headed jingoism of much of America. Exemplars of the genera are evident on this thread.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Gosh, all this time I was looking at Islamic history, Shi’a doctrine, and the words and actions of the Iranian government.
All this time, MWS had the truth, too!
January 13th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
But that didn’t mean we had to invade the Soviet Union or communist China.
Obviously not, because MAD was part of the equation, then, which it is not with fundamentalist zealots.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Of course when it comes to two little Russian enclaves in Georgia, Alex thinks it is worth nuclear holocaust and the annihilation of Georgia to keep South Ossesia Georgian, against the will of the South Ossesians.
For a moralizer like you, who seems to have no problem telling me that I shouldn’t be allowed to get married because my sexuality is wrong, you sure seem to have a hard time judging what’s moral in the political realm. Georgia, Russia, democracy, autocracy, it’s all the same, really — who’s to say who’s right or wrong?
I never advocated an invasion of Russia, by the way.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:04 am
OK Alex – you tell us what is moral.
Is it moral for the Ossetians to be forced to submit to Georgian rule, despite the fact that they do not want to? Do you accept that American notion of the legitimacy of one’s government arising from the consent of the governed?
January 14th, 2009 at 12:05 am
Alex,
“you sure seem to have a hard time judging what’s moral in the political realm. ”
It is immoral to condemn vast numbers of people to death to keep two enclaves in a country to which they do not want to belong.
And you did advocate going to war with Russia over it.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:09 am
Alex,
Do you wish we were at war with Russia right now over South Ossesia, or are you glad that cooler heads prevailed, and hyperventilating armchair imperialists like you were ignored?
January 14th, 2009 at 12:41 am
I advocated sending military aid to Georgia, not going to war and putting troops on the ground or anything like that.
And no, I am not glad that “cooler heads” prevailed. The message sent to Putin? Go ahead — we’re not gonna stop you.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:42 am
Is it moral for the Ossetians to be forced to submit to Georgian rule, despite the fact that they do not want to? Do you accept that American notion of the legitimacy of one’s government arising from the consent of the governed?
No one has a right to vote away the rights of others.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:42 am
If 99% of people vote to take away the power of the 1%, then I oppose that, as should you. But you seem to stand with the pro-autocrat South Ossetians.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:51 am
Alex,
http://race42008.com/2008/08/12/intervene-in-georgia/#comments
Reread what you wrote. You advocated military intervention.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:52 am
Alex,
“No one has a right to vote away the rights of others.”
How about the right to not get annihilated in a chest bumping contest between Alex and Putin?
January 14th, 2009 at 12:53 am
Huh?
What are you talking about?
The Ossetians do not want to be part of Georgia. Independent Georgia has never ruled them in the post Soviet era. They have been effectivly independent for 17 years. This has been an attempt by Georgia to assert control over people who do not want to be controlled by them. By force.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:54 am
Alex,
“But you seem to stand with the pro-autocrat South Ossetians.”
If the South Ossetians want to be ruled by an autocrat, what business is it of yours?
You’ve got control issues, dude.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:59 am
Alex,
“I advocated sending military aid to Georgia, not going to war and putting troops on the ground or anything like that.”
That’s not true. Here are a couple of your money quotes from that thread:
“It’s, as Jeane Kirkpatrick would say, making war to keep peace.”
“Are you aware that we have a volunteer military? It’s not a matter of whether I’m willing to put my life on the line. It’s that others have said that they are and have made contracts with the government that they will die if they need to.”
“The United States and the rest of the West is reluctant to militarily intervene in Georgia.
Why? Have we learned nothing from history? ”
Yes, Alex, you argued for going to war over South Ossetia.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:07 am
Alex,
“And no, I am not glad that “cooler heads” prevailed.”
Are you crazy??? Do you love war so much that you think we’d be better off right now with a military standoff/ hot war with Russia on TOP of our $2 trillion deficit, financial meltdown, recession, quagmire in the middle east, etc… etc…..
Maybe you don’t think we are dealing with enough crises right now?
January 14th, 2009 at 5:34 am
MWS, If we take your logic to the extreme, maybe a bunch of Americans your move to Niagara Fall, Ontario, out number them and say ‘Oh we, democratically decide to join New York state.’ It is one thing to argue against war, it is another to pretend that the Russians are morally right in South Ossetia0. That kind of hurts your argument and frankly that kind of talk just encourages us in the ‘Pro-War camp’ (if you like the term.)
January 14th, 2009 at 8:23 am
“We have a volunteer military that is comprised entirely of soldiers who have enlisted – or reenlisted – during wartime.”
As an ex-marine, I would like to see people not refer to military personnel as ’sodiers, unless they are talking specifically about the Army. We have marines, sailors, airman, etc., so please either list them or use another more encompassing term. Thank you my friend.
January 14th, 2009 at 9:02 am
#59 “Your plea for brutality in war is misplaced.”
Tano, let’s be clear about this. I do not condone torture (by which I mean extreme physical and/or mental abuse that leaves permanent physical or mental injury, of which I don’t think waterboarding qualifies) of prisoners, and I don’t think torture is necessary to maintain an army in good fighting shape. What I object to is putting restrictions on our military that significantly hamper their ability to fight (such as treating prisoners to better food and living conditions than soldiers, excessive regulation as to how to conduct operations, and so on). By no means is this a “plea for brutality in war.”
January 14th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Ohio,
“If we take your logic to the extreme, maybe a bunch of Americans your move to Niagara Fall, Ontario, out number them and say ‘Oh we, democratically decide to join New York state.’”
That’s dumb. Noone would ever want to join New York state.
January 14th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Ohio,
……on a more serious note, one can apply reductio ad absurdum to about any principle that requires prudential judgement. Obviously, I can’t just secede my house and lawn, but somewhere between here and an entire country there lies the notion of a distinct region that has the right of self determination.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:43 am
“Noone would ever want to join New York state.” Yeah, you are right, I for one would of course rather join Ohi
Illinoisguy:
Thanks for your service to our great country, I knew there was something I liked about you. I know that we have had our disagreements, but you, my friend are a great Conservative and a great American. I know the moderates don’t like me to use the P word, but you are also a Patriot!
MWS:
I certainly do not agree entirely with your approach, but I believe that you too are a Patriot American
January 14th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
“I know the moderates don’t like me to use the P word, but you are also a Patriot!”
Moderates (and I’ll go ahead and expose myself to fire and say most liberals as well) love their country too
The only people who don’t are followers of extremist ideologies, of which there are few to none on this board.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Yes MPC, most Liberals actually do love our country, but apparently, the P word is not politically correct in some corners.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
First, I doubt this protest says anything per se about Iran. Some days ago, a mullah was leading a crowd in the traditional “Death to Israel” chant, but got mixed up and started chanting “Death to Palestine”.. The crowd followed through obediently.
http://www.rferl.org/Content/Death_To_Palestine_Wait_I_Mean_Israel/1367100.html
Second, of course torture is effective (contra Win M.). Just browse at Amnesty and see just how many intelligence agencies are accused of it. Somehow, I think most of these agencies know what they’re doing and don’t torture simply to piss of Amnesty. Also, there’s a very little difference between letting someone else do the torturing for you (a la Clinton renditions) or doing it directly, except the latter is less hypocritical. None of the above refutes the very real moral issues, and we’ll see what Obama will do about it (if anything).
Third, the Sudetenland contained some key industrial areas of Czechoslovakia, which Hitler received intact. This set up Germany to annex the rest in March 1939 (No fortified defense line anymore), receiving even more key factories (especially Skoda). No Munich, and WWII becomes much less bloody regardless of whether he would have managed to conquer Czechoslovakia (the German army’s staff was full of doubts. I do believe they knew more than Tano), since he wouldn’t have gotten them intact.
January 14th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
200!