User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 2.6989 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Clearly, made by serious people desperately trying to be unserious.
Andy, what percentage of liberals complaining about "chickenhawks" got off their asses, went down to New Orleans to help evacuate, to help clean up, to help rebuild, or to offer help to relocate those that lost homes? Now what percentage did that compared to those that only mailed money somewhere and complained about all of the work that needed to be done or the things Bush needed to to or failed to do?
This would be quite the clever analogy if liberals had been the ones who had not only caused Katrina, but were among the hurricane's vocal defenders, and were advocating letting the hurricane stick around to finish up the job. But somehow I can't seem to find any pre-Katrina record of liberals advocating pre-emptive hurricanes.
Believe me, the recruiting poster for Al Qaeda looks like this.
The Al Qaeda poster does not look like this.
I certainly would not deny us defeating Iraq didn't attract Al Qaeda to Iraq, but it is odd that on one hand you argue Al Qaeda didn't care about Iraq, then on the other, you are arguing that Al Qaeda is fighting to the death over Iraq. Which is it?
You are ignorant on this issue. Try reading more about what is going on in Iraq, preferably from a source other than the New York Times.
If you think Iraq should be rebuilt, then why don't you volunteer for the Army and help out? You don't need to be in combat, they will still welcome you.
Actually I haven't read much of it. Of course, folks on the left can be every bit as ridiculous as folks on the right. I would be pretty impressed if they could beat RMc's polar fantasy world of left=wrong versus right.
More un-seriousness from the left. Life is one big joke. Why don't you go over and take mr softball player for a walk.
Liberalism = "Giving black people money from a 10-foot pole"
Actually I haven't read much of it. Of course, folks on the left can be every bit as ridiculous as folks on the right. I would be pretty impressed if they could beat RMc's polar fantasy world of left=wrong versus right.
Yeah, yeah. You caricature me as some nutjob who...caricatures everybody. Whatever.
There are plenty of reasons to oppose this war, beginning with the WMDs boner and fact that we're still there after five freakin' years. I've never said, nor do I believe, that more than a tiny percentage of people against this war are stupid or unpatriotic. And then the scareducks of the world, who are much louder and more determined than your typical left-of-center chap, start bleating about reporters being worse than the thugs who plant IEDs. And -- whoops! -- there goes your credibility, libs.
With the war as unpopular as it is (even with nominal supporters like me), you'd think that Bush would've been unelected/impeached/fricasseed a long time ago and that US troops would've been out of Iraq so fast that (insert cliche here). But the antiwar crowd seems genetically incapable of getting their message across in a way that doesn't make them look, well, stupid and/or unpatriotic. The Left can't organize a two-car parade, no matter what the cause. That's the main reason why I'm a right-leaning independent; the conservatives seem to do a slightly better job of keeping their wackjobs in line. (Slightly.)
Now with Saddam gone, Al Qaeda (who had some ties to Mr. H but not as many as some people believe) wants to fill the power vaccuum; or rather, create more vaccuum, more chaos, more death. Terrorized people aren't too interested in forming democracies, or even fighting back much. AQ doesn't wear uniforms, and they have no problem with killing women and children. Cockroaches. Time to exterminate. Time to win, and then get our people the hell out of there.
I for one thank god you're not giving in to your penchant for distortion and hypersimplification, Joe. Some of us do spend an inordinate amount of time protesting, attempting to stiffen the spines of our congressfolk, attempting to rally useful opposition designed to thwart unnecessary violence against Iran, trying to elect a President who understands that an organized withdrawal from Iraq that gives the Iraqis the opportunity to stabilize their own country, and so on. And venting or trying out ideas on a baseball site among (mostly) intelligent people? Guilty.
So Gandhi, in your view, was a p*ssy? For the sake of lurkers, there is indeed value in pointing out that Bush and Cheney are likely not sane. Sane men can be reached by way of reason. Those that aren't, can't, but may be thwarted, here, by shows of political power. Biden's threat of having impeachment proceedings brought against Bush if he bombed Iran without going through Congress may prove beneficial in preventing an unnecessary war with Iran--and do you think Biden would have announced this without substantial, expressed support from a great many Americans?
edit: it's hardly the only good post in this thread, but Alex's 194 is very solid.
Someone's stuck on a feedback loop of 2005 Keyboard Kommando rhetoric.
Not as many as you want to believe, for one.
Time to win, and then get our people the hell out of there.
Good point. So what has been our goal for the past five years? Trying to go to extra innings?
I say this with no attempt to wink and hint that McCain is getting senile, or anything of that stripe, but rather that, despite his indignant protestations, he either doesn't know enough, or isn't interested in knowing enough, or thinks he knows enough but doesn't, or has his judgment is so clouded by his us v. them view of the world, that the facts essential to stabilizing Iraq elude him. His claims that he is as versed in the situation as he needs to be, when his public statements regularly include distortions, fabrications, ignorance, and lies, tell us he isn't interested in knowing more than he already believes he does.
I'm not interested in playing gotcha, but it's clear from McCain's own statements of the last several months that he does not know how many troops, within 15,000, we currently have in Iraq, nor is he readily familiar with the differences between Sunni and Shia, or with what each group is trying to accomplish. This last is particularly disturbing, since without that knowledge, compelling the parties to reconcile will not be possible. If one is not terribly interested in the differences between the parties, how can one lead them to common ground?
I am also saddened by McCain's willingness to publicly lie about Obama's positions. To say that Obama wants to surrender in Iraq passes distortion and becomes, simply, a lie. No remotely reasonably interpretation of Obama's thoughts on the subject involve anything like surrender. Since McCain is so willing to deceive on this essential issue, there is no reason he won't continue to deceive as president.
On these grounds, and others, McCain cannot resolve the US occupation of Iraq successfully. To therefore assert we can win in Iraq is meaningless. Theoretically, it may be possible. In practice, it will not be. It is on this basis I will vote for Obama in November, as he is the only candidate with a plan that might, in practice, succeed.
You're not a nutjob. You're simply incapable of carrying on a discussion without casting it into some fantasy world where evil liberals are ruining everything. You ALWAYS end up talking about those liberals. You're like a machine: put a quarter in, and you get the liberals are evil idiots schtick.
Not only is this form of discourse dumber than dirt, it's unproductive. It might fly with your frustrated talk radio friends, but you accomplish nothing with it except backslapping with your angry comrades. Same is true on the left where they do it, of course.
It is possible to hold a conservative position on issues and not participate in that sort of silliness. Apparently you are so entrenched in it you don't even realize you're doing it, which is kind of funny to watch sometimes.
And most of the anti-war arguments that it complains weren't covered were not, "The administration's position is absolutely false," but rather, "There are debates over the administration's positions within the intelligence community." But there are always debates in intelligence work, and if you could just intuit the correct answers, we wouldn't need to pay for a CIA. (I do find it ironic that this is the criticism alleged; after all, the media is also routinely criticized for its "some say" coverage -- some say that the earth is round, while some say that it is flat.)
As to the politicians/activists criticizing the administration, most of _them_ had a terrible track record before the war, so it's not surprising that the media didn't give them the benefit of the doubt.
Ultimately, of course, the dissenters on the intelligence were entirely right and the administration was entirely wrong. But that doesn't prove that the media did a bad job. While their job is not to simply act as stenographers, their job is also not to scream "Liar liar" at politicians. Nor is it their job to <u>try</u> to stop a war, which is what the lefty crowd here really wanted; their job is to report, not to pick the outcome they like and try to bring it about.
(*) I read the NYT every day, and I only remember one truly egregious piece by Miller -- that is, where there were no caveats, and where it was obvious in the piece that it was reliant solely on one person's word. But that was after the war, when she reported that a secret group that she wasn't allowed to talk about had found all sorts of evidence of WMD.
I agree. It has gone badly, yes, much worse than proponents of the war hoped/predicted. But at the same time, many of the negative predictions of war opponents did not come to pass. That suggests less foresight and more just throwing negative claims at the wall to see what would stick.
Was it David Cross who said a War on Terror is like a War on Jealousy? Or, I guess, a perpetual war.
I don't think people understand the money this is costing. The human mind didn't evolve to understand millions or billions. What does $10 billion a month mean? Yawn. Say it's $4,000 per second and maybe people will take notice. If that doesn't bother them, that's the way it goes. We live in a democracy. But few are working to put such arcane stuff into terms all of us can grasp and that, ultimately, brings us full circle because that is the major failure of modern, mainstream (mostly TV) journalism.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (non-partisan, government) says we spend 68 cents of every tax dollar on defense. That includes things like nuclear weapons, which technically get pushed off to the DOE. It also includes Veterans Affairs money. And it doesn't factor trust funds payments for Medicare and SS as expenditures for obvious accounting reasons. Again, though, you never hear that 68 percent number cited. It's always much, much smaller (typically 20 percent).
So, it's $600 billion or so on defense (not including Iraq, which is at least $120 billion more). Conversely, Bush called for $56 billion on education this year. I understand that states pay the freight on that, but many are collapsing on the verge of bankruptcy (especially my state of New Jersey) and there is no more regressive tax than property taxes. Nationalizing education spending would result in a massive tax decrease for a very large swath of the American public.
Should defense be more than 10 times the national priority that education is?
When you combine that with the fact that he refuses to do the joint town hall meetings in front of the people with McCain, it becomes more and more obvious every day that Obama is just a total and utter coward. He's got the great teleprompter speech, but nothing to offer beyond that.
And you mischaracterize the people he's talking about; it's not merely people who "don't want to" send people to war. Yes, if all you are is a guy who thought that was a bad policy decision, there might not be any moral obligations attached to that view -- but if you actively thought the war was Evil and Bush was Hitler, then I think you have a little bit more of such an obligation to try to stop it/him.
Besides, the point is that the war opponents aren't working to bring troops out of harms way. They're not doing anything except ranting on blogs and smearing news anchors who just died, and maybe occasionally running around with giant puppet heads at rallies sponsored by people just as reprehensible as the Weathermen.
More than a million people have donated money to Obama's campaign.
Very nice.
In other words, your ass can't cash a check that your mouth wrote. The proper course of action for a homicidal maniac war criminal president, is, uh, expressing dislike? What would you have attempted if you were Claus von Stauffenberg? Send Hitler a satirical birthday card?
Do you really believe that a federal department will adequately be able to determine the lcoal needs and distribute money appropriately? Anytime you separate money from the local government and put it through additionaly layers you will have more of a chance of waste and pork.
Property taxes aren't the only way that local government collects taxes either. You can also adjust a sales tax to be fair to lower income families. Wisconsin (or at least Milwaukee, not sure) doesn't charge tax on certain food items. Minnesota doesn't have tax on clothing (or at least didn't use to, not sure of current policy).
I'm an independent with right leanings, not because I agree with most of the things that Republicans want, but because I have no faith the the federal government can provide better services lccally than the local government will.
It's true that war supporters and war opponents have an equal obligation to develop political support for their respective sides. But there's a big difference between a war opponent who works to bring all troops out of harm's way, and a war supporter who works to keep them---but not himself---in the line of fire.
If there were a draft, yes. Without one, no.
With the presence of a military draft, the war supporter's moral obligation is a no-brainer. The war opponent's choice is the more complex one, pitting his political views against whatever thoughts he may have about his obligation as a citizen to obey his country's laws and share his fellow citizens' sacrifices. Internal debates like this among war opponents were commonplace during Vietnam, and far more of them were resolved by service than by flight.
In the absence of a draft, the roles are reversed. Here, it makes litte or no sense for a war opponent to volunteer for a war that he opposes, beyond taking a sort of Mother Teresa role. But for a war supporter of military age to advocate sending others---but not himself---off to battle, amounts to little more than cowardice and hypocrisy.
There may be extenuating circumstances of the sort that exempted men from the draft in previous wars: defense-related work; sole support of children below a certain age; etc. But beyond that limited number of categories, you're in the classic "do as I say, not do as I do" mode.
You can certainly attack the draft on libertarian philosophical grounds, and take the position that people should be free from conscription. I don't agree, but it's certainly not dishonorable to believe this.
But this has nothing to do with one's personal choice to serve in a time of an optional war, a war that you yourself claim to believe is just and necessary.
I'm not addressing any war supporter in particular when I say this, since individual circumstances vary, but to any war supporter who's young and single, I'd ask: If you're scared, why don't you just say so?
Because that's what it boils down to. Fear and hypocrisy. You're perfectly willing to attend and speak eloquently at other people's funerals, but you don't want to risk possibly having the next one be your own.
I can see why certain people don't like this spelled out so bluntly. Can't say that I blame them. Moral evasion isn't always pretty, least of all to oneself.
My problem has always been, define "win". MISSION ACCOMPLISHED?
Bingo.
Hitler was threatening Germany's very survival with his warmaking. The fact that the United States was not in danger at all from Iraq is one of the principle reasons most people who were against the war in the first place took that stand.
Nice strawman, David. I was talking about Iraq.
In other words, so that we're clear here, you're advocating Bush's assassination?
You must have missed the nudgewinksecrethandshake. ;
I'll certainly discuss the possibility that Bush is simply lacking that essential human trait, empathy, so much so that it renders his actions at times sociopathic. That he claims to have given up golf (but not other sports) in honor of the war dead, despite have played golf afterwards, anyway, is bizarre, to say the least. It's the assertion of a man who is simulating empathy. He's seen other people do it, so he imitates, but because he's doesn't actually experience the feeling, it comes out as this grotesque parody.
I did decide in my post not to pursue exactly what the whole issue of "win" would really mean, though of course defining that, in a larger dicussion, is critical. Rachel Maddow is one of the few analysts I'm aware of who pauses a discussion to ask that very question: what would constitute "winning"? In realistic terms, the best result, for the US, of remaining in Iraq, after a decade or so of intelligent, able US leadership, would be Iraqi casualties a third of what they are now, a couple of American deaths per week, the occasional suicide bombing that kills dozens of Americans and/or dozens or Iraqis, perhaps a concerted rocket attack on the Green Zone from time to time, the Sunnis who are currently bought stay bought, the alliance between the Shia-led Iraqi government and the Shia-led Iranian government doesn't grow much closer than it it now, the US has somehow been able to absorb the 2 to 10 trillion dollar cost of the decade long occupation, and no other significant problems have arisen around the world that went begging for US military assistance because of the substantial presence of US troops in Iraq.
And that is, by far, the best case scenario.
btw, that is probably the oddest sentence I've ever seen on this site.
I'm not the one who's explicitly stated that he's a lunatic, a sociopath, a war criminal, and a mass murderer. You are.
I simply believe he's an incompetent administrator with poor long-term planning, who is driven by what he wants to believe rather than what is actually true.
Claus von Stauffenberg wouldn't have tried to topple Hitler if Hitler was simply Franklin Pierce. One votes out a Franklin Pierce as I tried to do in 2004.
But as I say again, your mouth writes checks your ass can't cash. Like a chickenhawk, you're big with bravado, full of hot air and grandiose statements, while you firmly risk nothing for your beliefs.
You might have had a point if anyone was advocating violence against the government but declined to take part themselves. That would be fairly analogous.
What vigorous manner? Did Ark take part in some civil disobedience?
Thanks, ian. Well stated, and essentially what I was getting at when I asked Joe whether he thought Gandhi was just a p*ssy. A bit over the top, but I thought it made the pacifist point. It's clear there's no point or value in my addressing Joe any longer. He's the kind of guy who will simply keep changing or twisting the terms of the debate, or just make stuff up about me or whomever, so that he can keep "winning", whatever that might mean to him. More power to you, though, if you want to keep going.
Best wishes, Joe. I mean that.
Here is a link:
article
BTW, Joey, one among many things you never seem to get: being nasty and stupid is easy. Trying to be objective takes a little more work. You can threaten to "scramble my fukkin brains" now.
I think Obama should have a agreed to a couple of more town halls, too, but 10 would be major overkill, IMO.
Indeed. Sometimes we laugh so hard, we wet ourselves.
BTW Beano, although I don't agree with most of it, I respect your attempt to present the other side of the Iraq situation in detail. That is part of why I come here--to hear the other side.
Read about how McCain's last town hall went and the political calculation is particularly clear.
What about the format favors McCain so much?
I had heard that from Republican supporters, but wasn't sure if it was just right wing blathering, or how much truth there was to that.
My mileage varies. A lot.
McCain makes a lot of his gaffes at these little get togethers. His voice also seems to drag when he extemporizes, making him sound a bit doddery. Thanks for the link, rr. Does anyone know how the audiences for a McCain-Obama town hall might be selected?
I've noticed that lately, when he's doing a speech on such as the economy and the middle class, Obama seems somewhat unacquainted with the words he's reading, as though they were fairly new to him, and he was just going through the motions. Anyone else have that impression?
The man who brought you Willie Horton strikes again!
I don't see it that way; I do think McCain is OK in that format, though. I think Obama would be as well. I think both of them come off pretty well in small gatherings.
This is probably true. Were I election czar, I'd like to see 2-3 Town Halls. 10? Forget it.
Not sure. Assume the networks and campaigns do it and try to balance the audience. How you doing, ark? I just got back from a trip to IN and KY, incidentally.
He's in his 70s now, so one suspects a decline in his powers just on that. Still, I would guess he's still pretty good in front of a small audience. Certainly, the gap between McCain and Obama WRT their oratorical skills is smaller in the smaller setting.
Edit: Or was it his late 50s? 1995 or 96, I can't remember off-hand. He would've been around 59ish, or so.
Sounds right.
Good, thanks. My zaftig ballerina-physicist didn't work out, but I may get the loan of an apartment w water vu in Montreal for a couple of weeks, so that's some kind of compensation. What were you up to in IN and KY?
Yeah, and Mr. Messiah bravely offered to do one, on Independence Day, when just about every normal person in America who doesn't have to work is spending the day with friends and family, playing games outside, barbecuing, and watching fireworks.
Face it, when you take away his security blankets of all his friendly water carrying supporters in the media and his teleprompter, he gets exposed as the clueless man that he is, and he knows it as well as anyone.
I stand by my opinion. He's a yellow-bellied, lily-livered, pansy-assed, cowardly greenhorn.
No argument there. On the maverick illusion:
[url=http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/14/9632/]The Press Corps’ Unshakeable Crush on McCain
Some straight talk about the media’s favorite ‘maverick’
by Peter Hart[/url]
A useful look at the real McCain, from my favorite foam-flecked lefty site.
For the most part, yes, although Reagan's first debate (against Mondale), showed him regularly confused by the issues, and would have been useful if anyone had been paying attention. Ford's Poland misstatement told us he didn't know very much, and contributed to his defeat. Obama's difficulty in the last debate against Clinton also said something about how he reacts under pressure. Oh, and the mysterious box under Bush's jacket in 2004 might have tilted the election if those rightwing rags, the NYT and LAT, hadn't buried the story.
I would rather see the debate equivalent of a cage match, as I suspect you would. Two candidates, one stage, three hours.
Let me offer this. Very few right-wingers feel represented by McCain. That goes for many Reagan conservatives-myself, I'm sure it is true for the Bush wing of evangelicals and apparently the isolationist-Ron Paul wing of the right wing. If the Reagan conservatives were a 5 in size, the evangelicals are a 2 and the Ron Paul wing would be a 0.5.
While Obama is great reading cue cards or in front of a teleprompter, McCain doesn't exactly close the gap much in the Town Hall style debate. But, Obama has been prone to many gaffes already, when speaking off the cuff.
Robinred, maybe you can help me find out who else on here represents the "otherside" from your perspective. From my vantage point, I've seen maybe 1-2 others that would go as far as defending Bush's war on terror. Bush has been excellent in fighting terror. He will be missed by all, eventually, even if you don't realize that now.
Way too much snarking at liberals and buying into pro-war propaganda, but I did dig up this one bit from Beano upthread:
That part of his analysis was pretty accurate -- strategic location, committed militarily for the foreseeable future.
At what expense is the question I don't think he properly considers.
About this issue of McCain being a Maverick.
The media and the media alone is responsible for building up McCain. Especially the liberal media.
McCain was perhaps the only, if not, the only major Republican to consistently obstruct and oppose Bush during the past 8 year. The media loved McCain because of this and used him as a way to blunt Bush. Kind of like, "see here people, even this major Republican thinks Bush is an idiot". That was the wink and nod agreement that existed. McCain got to become a media whore and the media got to put a Republican on TV that bashed Bush and conservatism day in and day out, everyone got to pretend they were credible.
That is the maverick "illusion" for you. The liberal media used McCain to bash Bush. It is too late liberals to pretend now that he is some right-winger, he is not, never was, look at the Republican primary voting patterns, conservatives are not excited about McCain. He is as much of a sell out as a Republican.
I didn't buy pro-war prop, as much as I helped to originate it. I was for using force to destroy Iran's nuclear equipment in 2004-2005. This will have to take place at some point.
Iran to me, is about the last remaining, organized threat from radical Islam. Most of the rest of the middle east is enjoying rapid economic and social growth as we speak. Deal with Iran, I think we have ourselves a ball game.
Except it's not. The mullahs have been in control there for thirty years now and have yet to invade or occupy or even attack a neighbor. Including Israel. Unlike, say, Iraq under Saddam. Or Syria under the Assads. And sponsoring proxies doesn't count - all sides fund proxies in the region, including the Israelis.
The Wahhabist Saudi regime, through it and its wealthiest citizens' continued funding of the teaching of the most radical form of Islam out there, is a far richer, far better organized threat than Iran could ever hope to be.
While I generally agree, Chip, what, if anything, would you do about Iran possessing a nuclear weapon?
I think people are too quick to forget 9/11, and that even if Bush jumped the shark talking about evildoers and such, the terrorists still brought the war onto our soil. The military's job is to protect the nation and its citizens, which it is doing by making Al Qaeda fight in Iraq. I don't know for certain that there would have been another major attack in the US if it weren't for the war, but I think it's a significant possibility.
Also, I really don't think there is quite the increase in numbers of Islamic militants chomping at the bit to put a hurting on us. There may have been, but the tide has turned. The surge has made life very uncomfortable and you'd be surprised how quickly these guys lose their fervor when they are forced to hide and look over their shoulder all the time. There was a tie when our country didn't put any real pressure on these clowns, and it certainly seemed glamorous to young and impressionable people. That isn't the case anymore. Al Qaeda is screwed, and if we keep our foot on their throats as Beano says, they won't be long for this world. If we don't, well, I'm not sure, but I have a pretty good idea they'll regroup.
You must be unfamiliar with his vote in favor of allowing torture, or his cave-in on warrantless wiretapping. When pressed about his preferences about upcoming Supreme Court vacancies, he thought that Roberts and Alito were great guys — justices who just happened to also vote against habeas corpus rights in the recent Boumediene et al. v. Bush (PDF) decision.
In what substantive way has McCain ever differed from Bush? He's been a lapdog, and when he hasn't been that, he's been an enabler who provided the appearance of being a "maverick". Talk to Matt Welch, who posts here from time to time, about just what a maverick McCain isn't.
Well, now things are slowly beginning to make sense.
So is your real name Dick Cheney, Norman Podhoretz, Richard Perle, or Douglas Feith?
Since I know Feith, it has to be one of the first three. But who are you?
Beano Chaney?
Beano Podhoretz?
or Beano Perle?
Ahh, but does he know you?
It's important to keep in mind that it wasn't "the terrorists", generally, who brought us 9/11, but rather, and specifically, al-Qaida and Osama who committed that atrocity. Noting and acting on this distinction keeps us from treating all terrorist threats as equal. They're not. It also helps us make the necessary distinction between Al-Qaida, led by Osama bin Laden, and Al-Qaida-in-Iraq. They're not the same group. Hurting one doesn't necessarily have any effect on the other.
Except that Al-Qaida doesn't have to fight us in Iraq. They only do so when it is to their advantage. Fighting an enemy on the battlefield of his choosing is a significant error. Again, distinguishing between Al-Qaida and Al-Qaida-in-Iraq is necessary.
There's no way to tell, but given that Al-Qaida has a safe haven around the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, there's also no reason to think that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has anything to do with preventing an attack on U.S. soil. In that regard, I've never understood the assertion, 'we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here'. They don't have to fight over there. There's nothing about the war in Iraq that distracts anyone from attacking, say, Des Moines.
The CIA disagrees with you, and says Al-Qaida is as strong as ever. And, at any rate, it's going after Al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and not the war in Iraq, that has had some effect on their ability to fight.
Ahh, but does he know you?
Sure he does. He was one of my better customers for over a decade, right up to the end, and we had many a discussion without the slightest bit of acromony. Political differences mean little in book shops, at least in my shop. In fact by far the biggest section was military history, and we had plenty of military people coming in on a regular basis, both in and out of uniform.
First, in the absence of a draft, people aren't being "sent." They're choosing to go. That's the whole reason I brought up the issue of no draft. It no longer makes sense to talk in the draft-era language of people being "sent." (Yes, that's a little oversimplified, in that they didn't necessarily volunteer for this specific mission -- although this far in, that's less and less true -- but they did volunteer to go whereever the government decided the mission was.)
Second, there's nothing the least bit hypocritical about it. I don't mean that it's not very hypocritical; I mean that the word doesn't mean what you think it does. There is precisely zero hypocrisy in supporting a war but not volunteering to fight it. Now, if one refused to fight, and did so without good reason, that might be hypocritical. But not volunteering is not even remotely the same as refusing. It is precisely as "hypocritical" as supporting fire departments but not volunteering to be a fire fighter -- that is to say, not at all. The charge simply makes no sense.
The 4th of July thing--which McCain used too--would have been a legit point in 1968. Today, it means nothing. Between the internet, DVDs, and TiVo, anyone who cares about the Town Hall will see it--you included. As to the rest, well, that is really no different than a liberal saying McCain is a senile, out-of-touch, intellectually vapid, lobbyist-owned wife-dumping dumbshit warhawk. You want to "debate" that way, be my guest.
Beano,
The left/right split here is IMO about 50/50. But, only a few righties that I have seen really make an effort to own Bush or support the war. A few didn't vote for him; a few who did have excused themselves by blaming the Demos for nominating Kerry. But I get the "other side" on just about everything else around here, which is what I was referring to.
Like Justin T, I am not tremendously well-read on some aspects of the war and don't trust a lot of what I do read. I do think one can argue that Bush should get more credit than he does for the fact that there has not been another successful terrorist attack on US`soil. OTOH, I am not convinced that the war in Iraq is a main reason for that, nor am I convinced by Bush's overall strategy. Obama, cowardly though he may be, has made very direct, plain statements about going after the Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
ark,
Yes, HC was quicker on the draw verbally than Obama was, and that marrers. But I have known many quick types who did dumbass things.
Ah, the Internet Tough Guy! An unending fount of amusement ...
Of course it's all posturing/bluffing/etc., and the candidates will end up with more than 1 debate on 7/4 but less than 10, so there's no reason to make too big a deal over it -- but don't pretend that holding a debate on July 4th is not a transparent attempt to dodge the public.
Heehee. Guys, pretending that someone on my ignore list is actually hopeless enough to say this kind of thing never gets old!
It counts. Is it equal to invading a neighbornig country? No. But on its own terms it counts. Especially when the control over those proxies is so strong. Hezbollah's soldiers, for example, were all trained in Iran. When Iran decided Hezbollah should carrying on a campaign of kidnapping in Lebanon, Hezbollah did so. When Iran decided a hostage should be released, Hezbollah released him. When Iran decided taking hostages was no longer a good strategy, Hezbollah gave it up. Iran was pulling the strings last year when they ordered their vassals in Lebanon to bomb Israel (with Iranian munitions) and take Israelie soldiers hostage (who were then imprisoned in Teheran, where they remain today). Iran was pulling the strings when they ordered the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 Americans.
It is true that other parties -- including Israel -- have used proxies. But in the other cases, the proxies -- such as the Christians and Druze of Lebanon for Israel -- have been more like temporary allies than vassals. The Hezbollah movement would hardly exist but for Iran. Same with its vassals now operating in Iraq. It's not just that all of the money and weapons come from Iran, but the training and orders do to. If there is an equivalent in the Middle East now, it could be the Iraqi government, which acts like a vassal of the country (us) which funds and trains and orders it.
At one time, the opinion polls showed that a substantial majority thought the war in Iraq had increased the risk of terrorist attacks in the US. I found that very curious, since no attacks were actually occuring. I think Iraq probably had a neutral effect but I always viewed the invasion as ancillary at best in controlling terrorism at home. Geopolitically, the circumstances were just right to grab a very strategically important piece of real estate. Bush's "strategy" has been a continuation of much of this country's military strategy since about 1861, primarily using our overwhelming resources to grind down and ultimately crush the opposition.
It has been pretty much agreed Al Qaeda has been in decline for the past 2 years. About 3-4 years ago, early in the Iraq was, there was a feeling Al Qaeda was gaining strength, but that feeling passed. Just 2 weeks ago this story gained national news. Al Qaeda is in steep decline. Thanks to relentless pursuit around the world and us killing thousands upon thousands of radical islamic fighters in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan and elsewhere.
Al Qaeda near defeat.
You try too hard to separate Al Qaeda from Al Qaeda in Iraq, as if to stubbornly try to hold on to Iraq war opposition. While different, they surely have different leadership, they have a similar agenda and attract the same islamic radical fighter with little distinction. I'm sure our military has respect for both operations, as they have killed thousands of Americans across the globe.
It certainly depends, in part, on whether one is of military service age or not. I don't see Jenna Bush in camouflage. None of the Cheneys are in uniform (though I wouldn't be sure that Mary Cheney is of age). And there are hordes of conservative bloggers who have egged on this glorious war of civilizations, pumping it as the most important thing ever, and yet staying happily away behind their keyboards. Many of them, like Michelle Malkin, are of age; others, like Bush, Cheney and Rush Limbaugh, evaded service during times when there was a draft and there was a possibility they could actually go to war and get shot at.
It's important to note here that I do not believe that military service should be a prerequisite for high office. That stands the constitutional order on its head and puts the military, ultimately, as the chief of government, which is where it was never intended and should not be in any kind of civil society. But that said, it is rank hypocrisy when those who have evaded war's consequences feverishly and frivolously cheer on a conflict in which they have no personal stake.
The example of firefighting is tepid, and frankly inadequate; we are talking about the killing of other human beings as an instrument of policy. The consequences of having a fire department is that men may be injured and even killed in the line of duty; the consequences of starting a war is that people will be killed.
(2) We're not talking about Jenna Bush or Mary Cheney, neither of whom is relevant to the discussion, since we have no idea how they feel about the war. (This sounds like yet another misplaced Vietnam draft-era reference, where people criticize politicians for sending other people's children to fight, but not sending their own children. But again, there's no draft, so they can't "send their own children.")
Bush served. As far as I know, Cheney and Limbaugh took advantage of available legal exemptions, which is not "evading" service as that term is normally used. (But in any case, so what? Is it your position that once someone fails to serve in one war, one is never allowed to support any war in the future without being a hypocrite? Somehow I don't think anybody would be criticizing them for supporting the war in Afghanistan, which says to me that the charge is actually contingent on the fact that you disapprove of the Iraq war, rather than on their behavior.) As for Malkin, of whom I am not a fan, I have no idea whether she's eligible -- she's of age, but there are other requirements. But again, assuming she is eligible, so what? It would be hypocrisy if she criticized someone else for not serving while not serving herself; it is not hypocrisy merely to support a war without first volunteering for the military.
No; we're talking about "hypocrisy." The fact that you think war is very bad is irrelevant to the charge of hypocrisy. If it's hypocrisy, it's hypocrisy because of what they say vs. what they do; it's not hypocrisy because "people will be killed."
I don't think you can use the excuse that the experiences of some distant relative give you reason to slur a man on the day of his death. If you look at those directly involved, those physically and psychologically scarred, I think most bear their troubles with dignity, resolve and even grace. I doubt if most of them would broadcast hate toward those that directly or indirectly forced them into the situations that led to their wounds.
"Oh noes! They were in favor of policies that led to use of our volunteer military force which is there for that purpose, but didn't join up themselves!" is the lamest gotcha ever, lame enough for a Republican to use. There would be more of an argument if there was a draft.
Well, if it is hypocrisy, Avoid the Arkanoid! has some explaining to do, since he advocates a 90% tax bracket for people without voluntarily paying 90% of his income in taxes himself.
Joey knows his role around here, and plays it to perfection.
Don't piss him off, though, or he'll cyber-scramble your fecking brains.
where can one see these pics?
Beano 23 posts
arkitekton 21
scareduck 17
Andy 16
Softball 11
Padraic 11
ian 10
RMc 10
kevin 10
I'd think they'd be on wiki gonzalez, since the administrator of that site was at the meetup, but I haven't checked. Somebody posted a link in one of the post-meetup lounges, but I don't recall which.
I guess my gripe really has to do with people who talk big and that's it. My political perspective isn't too far off that of Retardo's. When I found out that all he did was type, that he wasn't involved in community projects or organizing, he didn't put his ass on the line for his beliefs beyond bytes, bits and his computer chair, I lost respect for him.
There are quiet people out there that are doing what they can to make a better world, and it means infinitely more than some putz typing snarky invective on a stupid baseball board. That's the difference between wisdom and opinion. Your mileage may vary of course.
But when it comes to an opinion about the conduct of the war or insurgency, an opinion about how soldiers are treated, an idea about foreign policy and its ramifications, I'll weight the opinion of the guy who deals with it more heavily.
I don't know, man--it was a good time and all, but the competition's stiff. I'm not sure the Milwaukee megameetup, whose aftermath resulted in Meatwad crashing on my futon and vomiting in my john, can be easily topped.
Our colonel was pissed when they announced a ceasefire. But we met our objective and got the Republican Guards out of Kuwait. He felt that we should have rolled on to Baghdad. Sometimes I think he may've been right, but it the US didn't sell the war to the Allies that way. Sometimes I thought the idea of having Saddam around would keep Israel in Iran from getting too ambitious. Sometimes I've felt that we should have pursued Saddam's overthrow covertly like we would do in that bad old days.
In any event, the biggest differences were that we had a plan the first time and the military was still pretty well prepared because it was still on a Cold War footing.
I'm sure there are guys that I know who went over this time, but I pretty much lost track of my old Army buddies years ago. Sorry I couldn't shed much light on the current situation.
DMN, I'm not surprised.
here you go, TD:
Best. Meet-up. Evah.
Let's play "Guess the Primates". No cheating.
- ok
the hot irish guy with the HOT LAIGSSSS is spahnie
what i want is to hear about the, um, discussions that kevin and DMN had. except i still think i was right about how it went
dude
dude
sup
beer
dude
dude
kev, 307 refers to Yugoslavia, not Red Sox Nation.
I don't think one can really appreciate my HOT LAIGSSSS from that photo.
I saw. That's part of what made me rage.
I don't have numbers, but most people I know--even people over 65--have TiVo or other means of recording an event on network TV, and use the internet, even people without much money. Considering I was just in a small town in Kentucky, and talked to a guy who had just gotten indoor plumbing but had a TiVo, color me skeptical (when I said DVDs, I meant VCRs, which are dying but are still around, particularly among older folks). I also know that any Town Hall gaffes will be discussed, excerpted, parsed, repeated, etc ad nasueum in any number of formats. Indeed, having fewer people see the whole thing increases the risk of a gaffe being a big problem, in that that is ALL people would see. There is no way for a presidential candidate to effectively "duck the public" in the digital era--in addition to which it has provided right-wing hard-ons like you and Joey with a talking point. So, if "ducking the public" is the intent, it is not a very effective strategy--we would likely agree on that.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main