Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, March 31, 2013

OTP: April 2013: Daily Caller: Baseball and the GOP: To rebrand the party, think like a sports fan

This week’s GOP autopsy report, commissioned by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, is a great start in the much-needed task of rebranding the Republican Party. As the chairman acknowledged, “the way we communicate our principles isn’t resonating widely enough” and “we have to be more inclusive.” The report contains 219 recommendations to “connect people to our principles.” To achieve that goal, the party will need a strategic vision of how voters think about politics, which is something that the report lacks. For that, the GOP can learn a lot from another American passion: baseball.

This year, about 75 million Americans will go to the baseball stadium to watch a ballgame, about the same number as those who will vote in next year’s election. We rarely think about why someone becomes a baseball fan, or why they root for a certain team. Nor do we usually think about why someone chooses to vote for a certain political party. But it’s actually a very useful exercise.

When it comes to baseball, fan loyalty has almost nothing to do with the brain, and almost everything to do with the heart. In all of history, there’s never been a baseball fan who rooted for his team because it had the lowest ticket prices, or because it had the most taxpayer-friendly stadium deal, or because its players did the most community service. For the vast majority of Americans, rooting for a baseball team — not to mention, voting for a political party — isn’t really a rational choice; it’s more of a statement of personal identity — a statement telling the world, “This is who I am.” And for most people, defining “who I am” starts with family and community, before branching out into areas like race, age, gender, and class.

Family is pretty straightforward. If your mom and dad are Yankee fans, you’re almost certainly a Yankee fan. The same is true in politics. If your mom and dad are Republicans, you’re almost certainly a Republican.

Community is also pretty straightforward. If you grew up in, say, Philadelphia, chances are pretty great you’re a Phillies fan. Likewise, someone who grew up in Republican territory like, say, suburban Dallas or rural Indiana is much more likely to become a Republican than a nearly identical person from Seattle or Santa Fe.

Cities with more than one baseball team, like New York or Chicago, show revealing breakdowns by race and gender. The racial split in Chicago between Cubs fans on the North Side and White Sox fans on the South Side is well-documented. In New York, there’s an intriguing gender gap between Mets and Yankee fans, with women gravitating a lot more to the Yanks. While there’s a few theories out there trying to explain that, one obvious answer leaps out: Yankees heartthrob Derek Jeter.

In sports, as in politics, people’s convictions can’t be conveniently reduced to who their parents are or what they look like. But those things are an important foundation, upon which more rational sentiments come into being. Once you’re attached to your team on an emotional level — seeing them as a personal reflection of who you are and what you care about most — a rational exterior comes into being through phrases like “the Red Sox are the best team because they have the most heart” or “the Republicans are the best party because they know how to create jobs.”

Tripon Posted: March 31, 2013 at 10:52 AM | 6544 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics

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.

Page 36 of 66 pages ‹ First  < 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 >  Last ›
   3501. spike Posted: April 18, 2013 at 03:08 PM (#4418225)
I've seen pics of him as a Hank Jr. impersonator as well, which should carry significant additional charges.
   3502. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 03:08 PM (#4418226)
How does any of that mitigate a series of inept choices by the Post?


I'll start by questioning the series-of-inept-choices premise, but I never said it "mitigated" anything. My comment was to note that, as usual, the leftist crowd that has scorn for the Post reserves none for the newspaper that was actually faking photos and running to print with them.
   3503. spike Posted: April 18, 2013 at 03:12 PM (#4418229)
We've got somewhere in the neighborhood of 6-7 billion unaccounted for from our Iraq outlays.

We've got a LOT more than that

   3504. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 18, 2013 at 03:12 PM (#4418230)
as usual, the leftist crowd


An ever variable group which is usually composed of anyone arguing with Ray on a specific point. A large majority of "leftists" here* on this sight have no said much of anything of the sort suggested here.

* Since we on the left are a huge percentage of all posters here and relatively few posters have made such claims, my statement is clearly true.
   3505. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 03:13 PM (#4418231)
WMD is such a bogus term. Mustard gas is a WMD. Anthrax is a WMD. Both suck, both are deadly. Neither are on a scale different than conventional weaponry. The only real WMDs are nuclear devices and potentially some weaponized diseases.
   3506. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 03:14 PM (#4418234)
12b is within spitting distance of paying for a years worth of universal pre-k.
   3507. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 18, 2013 at 03:16 PM (#4418235)
Ray, perhaps you should worry less about defending the honor of the New York Post against the leftist crowd, and more about their demonstrated ability to filter, verify and position information.

To the extent that the Daily News is "getting off lightly"-- and I haven't seen a single positive comment about their photo alteration here or elsewhere; perhaps you could cut and paste any alibis or defenses you come across-- it's because the News' shabby photo edit isn't seen as part of a continuum of garbage reporting errors and sensationalism. The Post has no such margin of error.
   3508. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 03:21 PM (#4418240)

To the extent that the Daily News is "getting off lightly"-- and I haven't seen a single positive comment about their photo alteration here or elsewhere;


Of course not. In this example, the Daily News is Obama. See the discussion a couple pages ago re how lefties are in lock step with Obama except when they need to miss a step here and there.

it's because the News' shabby photo edit isn't seen as part of a continuum of garbage reporting errors and sensationalism. The Post has no such margin of error.


As to the general sentiment expressed in this paragraph, sub in "Obama" for "News" and "Bush" for "Post" and the lesson practically teaches itself.
   3509. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 03:25 PM (#4418244)
Now I'm pretty sure that Ray lives in a different reality than I do. Which means I need to research how this is possible, because imma win me a Nobel.
   3510. Ron J2 Posted: April 18, 2013 at 03:27 PM (#4418248)
#3496 I know France's official position was that he "probably" had chemical weapons (but there was no harm in being patient -- waiting for actual evidence as opposed to belief.)

They were extremely confident that he didn't have nuclear weapons or anything approaching a meaningful nuclear program (among other things they had been heavily involved in the earlier efforts, knew the people and knew what was left after the Israeli raid).

They were among those to make it clear that the "yellowcake" stories (which proved to be fraudulent) were not evidence of anything meaningful. Yellowcake takes lots of special (impossible to hide) equipment to weaponize. Besides Iraq already had plenty of the stuff. Short of actually force feeding it to somebody it's just not particularly dangerous.
   3511. JE (Jason) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 03:28 PM (#4418249)
By the way, we forget that, in the late 90s and even after 9/11, there was growing sentiment, mostly on the left, against the continuation of economic sanctions against Iraq, claiming that the United States and other Western powers were starving millions of innocent children. (An outgoing UN coordinator for the crude-for-food program pretty much parroted that line in 1998.) Meanwhile, Russia and China were trying to water down sanctions and exploit loopholes.
   3512. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 03:32 PM (#4418252)
You're still not making a case that Iraq's military power wasn't crippled, that they had a legit nuclear program, or that they posed any threat to any of their neighbors. Unless you're saying subversion of economic sanctions is a good reason to launch a war?
   3513. Ron J2 Posted: April 18, 2013 at 03:33 PM (#4418253)
#3499 Saw an interview with a senior CIA guy who made precisely that point.

In a way Britain is more interesting in that it's absolutely true that the evidence was "sexed up". It's just that the person doing this was not a civilian, but rather the head of the intelligence agency -- telling his masters what he believed they wanted to hear.
   3514. Steve Treder Posted: April 18, 2013 at 03:33 PM (#4418254)
By the way, we forget that, in the late 90s and even after 9/11, there was growing sentiment, mostly on the left, against the continuation of economic sanctions against Iraq, claiming that the United States and other Western powers were starving millions of innocent children. (An outgoing UN coordinator for the crude-for-food program pretty much parroted that line in 1998.) Russia and China were trying to water down sanctions and exploit loopholes.

Uh-huh. Is this meant to be presented as evidence that containment was failing? Because what it sounds like is evidence that containment was succeeding, if anything, all too well.
   3515. spike Posted: April 18, 2013 at 03:35 PM (#4418256)
Uh-huh. Is this meant to be presented as evidence that containment was failing?

It's intended to distract you from getting his hand caught in the assertion-cookie jar.
   3516. Lassus Posted: April 18, 2013 at 03:37 PM (#4418258)
My comment was to note that, as usual, the leftist crowd that has scorn for the Post reserves none for the newspaper that was actually faking photos and running to print with them.

The News gets all kind of scorn. I scorned it earlier, except for better design and better comics. The fact that it isn't as smelly a piece of garbage as the POST is nothing to be proud of.

Again, that you've lowered yourself to defending the POST as a source of reliable information is really sad.
   3517. Tilden Katz Posted: April 18, 2013 at 03:37 PM (#4418259)
Of course not. In this example, the Daily News is Obama. See the discussion a couple pages ago re how lefties are in lock step with Obama except when they need to miss a step here and there.


If it was the Times you'd have a strong point. But no card-carrying leftist gives a damn about being in lock step with the Daily News (the Post's slightly less trashy cousin).
   3518. Ron J2 Posted: April 18, 2013 at 03:38 PM (#4418260)
#3505 I agree and that's the major reason France was far less concerned about "WMD". As I said they were quite confident that Iraq had no nuclear capability.

As I understand it, the really nasty biologicals require careful storage or they degrade quickly. And it's tough to hide those kinds of things in the face of active, aggressive inspections.
   3519. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 03:39 PM (#4418262)
Who reads the Daily News, anyways? The Post, the Times, and the WSJ all have obvious market niches, but I have no clue why someone would pick the Daily News over any of them.
   3520. JE (Jason) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 03:40 PM (#4418264)
Um, what? I thought we merely lived in different parts of the country, Steve, but I'm beginning to think it's a separate universe too.
   3521. JE (Jason) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 03:41 PM (#4418266)
Meanwhile, here's How Iraq sanctions fail:

The sanctions imposed on Iraq are supposed to allow delivery of humanitarian goods under a U.N.-administered "oil for food" program — and keep out anything with a possible military application.

But inspectors have no authority to check ships or trucks transporting anything that is not designated as part of the program. So essential items such as food, medicine and parts to rebuild the country's water and electricity systems get caught up in red tape, while computers, DVD players, microwave ovens and other banned wares glide right in.

"You can buy anything you want here if you have the money," said George Sommerwill, a spokesman for the U.N. program in Iraq. "A lot of stuff available is clearly outside the oil-for-food program."

The selective nature of the sanctions has helped change Iraq's image from dangerous aggressor to hapless victim, particularly among the millions of Muslims who blame the West for their own grinding poverty. It is hardly an accident that Islamic extremists such as Osama bin Laden frequently cite Iraq to justify their terrorist campaign against the United States, a nation they say has terrorized the Iraqi people.
   3522. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 18, 2013 at 03:43 PM (#4418268)
By the way, we forget that, in the late 90s and even after 9/11, there was growing sentiment, mostly on the left, against the continuation of economic sanctions against Iraq


I was against them by the mid-90s. The whole thing was a stupid exercise with no actual, feasible, and useful geo-political goal in sight. Again, much like sanctions against Cuba but being trading partners with Russia, China and Vietnam - just dumb.
   3523. Lassus Posted: April 18, 2013 at 03:44 PM (#4418269)
Who reads the Daily News, anyways? The Post, the Times, and the WSJ all have obvious market niches, but I have no clue why someone would pick the Daily News over any of them.

Comics.

Seriously, that's the only reason I bought it daily when I lived in the city. Even when they lost a whole page, they were still the only game in town.
   3524. JE (Jason) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 03:46 PM (#4418270)
Meanwhile, I am still waiting to learn how you would have maintained the sanctions regime indefinitely, since many on the left here and elsewhere in the West, not to mention Moscow and Beijing, were actively seeking to undermine or eliminate them. Heck, some of you even have a tough time admitting that Iraqi Kurdistan is far better off today than it was before 2003.
   3525. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 03:47 PM (#4418272)
You're still utterly failing to show how that constitutes a cause for war, JE. Containment is more than just sanctions on luxury goods, it's a policy of limiting the threat the nation poses to it's neighbors and your interests. You have shown absolutely zero evidence that Iraq was such a threat to the United States that required toppling of the regime, or even a threat to it's neighbors.
   3526. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 03:47 PM (#4418273)
Okay:

Would a pre-war conclusion that Iraq didn't have WMD have made sense at the time? Was it supported? Or are people arguing that the answer was "Iraq probably doesn't have WMD" but that it was basically unclear and more time was needed.

Because IIRC there were pieces of evidence that simply didn't square with Iraq not having WMD, or at least with Saddam believing he didn't have WMD.

And:

* Would it be reasonable to conclude that perhaps some of Saddam's underlings were pretending to him that he had them? His behavior seemed to suggest that he thought he had them.

* Was Colin Powell's presentation, where he showed alleged sites and people scrambling around to hide things, just totally manufactured? Was Powell in on the cover-up and lies? I know he said later he was upset at having presented it, but how could an astute man of his stature not have seen that these were lies or at least a deceptive presentation by the administration?

* Did Bush and Cheney sincerely believe he had WMDs, and thus engaged in a picking and choosing of the evidence? Or did they completely lie, think that he didn't have them, but decided to use this as a pretext to go to war?

At best from what I can tell, it was a situation where they had (let's say) 100 pieces of evidence (let's assume all of equal weight for the purposes of this hypo), 80 pointing towards NO and 20 pointing towards YES, and, sincerely believing that he had them and probably letting that belief blind an objective analysis, they focused on the 20.

Recall that it did Bush no favors that it turned out Saddam didn't have WMD, and so it would have had to have been a pretty suicidal decision by Bush to start up and drive this train knowing that it was inevitable that he would drive it straight off a cliff.

   3527. JE (Jason) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 03:48 PM (#4418274)
I was against them by the mid-90s. The whole thing was a stupid exercise with no actual, feasible, and useful geo-political goal in sight. Again, much like sanctions against Cuba but being trading partners with Russia, China and Vietnam - just dumb.

Thanks for your candor, Mouse.
   3528. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 18, 2013 at 03:49 PM (#4418277)
Ray, even if your perceived absence of scorn is supposed to be de facto invisible evidence for liberal cherrypicking, there's no absence of scorn. The leftist crowd speaks:

Talking Points Memo:
"And now, its rival tabloid, the Daily News, is facing criticism over an apparent photo touch-up... in altering it, the paper violated a basic journalistic principle... Several News insiders told Capital the decision to alter the photo came straight from the top of the masthead. “Photographers and editors are so embarrassed and saddened by this,” said one source.

The Guardian (UK):
"By yesterday afternoon, the Daily News appeared to have buckled under the weight of criticism by posting the unaltered version on its website."

The Daily Beast:
"The Post wasn't the only New York tabloid to botch coverage of the Boston bombing."

Best of all for your premise, the Daily News isn't even a liberal paper; it's moderate conservative. It endorsed Mitt Romney for President last year.

To the extent that the Daily News is "getting off lightly"... it's because the News' shabby photo edit isn't seen as part of a continuum of garbage reporting errors and sensationalism. The Post has no such margin of error.

As to the general sentiment expressed in this paragraph, sub in "Obama" for "News" and "Bush" for "Post" and the lesson practically teaches itself.


That's a tough sub to make; the Daily News also endorsed George W. Bush in 2004.
   3529. Steve Treder Posted: April 18, 2013 at 03:50 PM (#4418278)
You're still utterly failing to show how that constitutes a cause for war, JE. Containment is more than just sanctions on luxury goods, it's a policy of limiting the threat the nation poses to it's neighbors and your interests. You have shown absolutely zero evidence that Iraq was such a threat to the United States that required toppling of the regime, or even a threat to it's neighbors.

Yep.
   3530. Ron J2 Posted: April 18, 2013 at 03:56 PM (#4418283)
#3526 My position was, "what's the hurry" (that's what I meant by the "Guns of August" line I used at the time.

I mean I genuinely don't see a bunch of mustard gas that's in storage some place hidden as being a threat to anybody. It has to be removed from hiding and distributed to the armed forces before it's a concern.

Meanwhile it's deteriorating all the time and they're not making more.

Now the day they tell the inspectors you can't go to a particular place is the day I order that place flattened. As long as the inspectors are in place there's simply no reason to be concerned.
   3531. spike Posted: April 18, 2013 at 03:57 PM (#4418284)
And further, the idea that if we hadn't gone to war somehow Bush/Cheney were going to just give in to "the left here and elsewhere in the West, not to mention Moscow and Beijing" on lifting containment is insane.
   3532. spike Posted: April 18, 2013 at 03:59 PM (#4418287)
My position was, "what's the hurry"

But I'm mad now!
   3533. BDC Posted: April 18, 2013 at 04:00 PM (#4418290)
Was Powell in on the cover-up and lies? I know he said later he was upset at having presented it, but how could an astute man of his stature not have seen that these were lies

I've been rethinking the "astute" part of my image of Powell ever since, and his stature in my eyes has diminished accordingly.
   3534. Steve Treder Posted: April 18, 2013 at 04:01 PM (#4418291)
And further, the idea that if we hadn't gone to war somehow Bush/Cheney were going to just give in to "the left here and elsewhere in the West, not to mention Moscow and Beijing" on lifting containment is insane.

Big time.
   3535. Steve Treder Posted: April 18, 2013 at 04:04 PM (#4418294)
I've been rethinking the "astute" part of my image of Powell ever since, and his stature in my eyes has diminished accordingly.

Agreed entirely. That episode made it all too plain that Powell was, in fact, not nearly as smart or as strong as (just about, I guess) everyone had seen him to be. Very disillusioning.
   3536. JE (Jason) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 04:04 PM (#4418295)
You're still utterly failing to show how that constitutes a cause for war, JE. Containment is more than just sanctions on luxury goods, it's a policy of limiting the threat the nation poses to it's neighbors and your interests. You have shown absolutely zero evidence that Iraq was such a threat to the United States that required toppling of the regime, or even a threat to it's neighbors.

Most agreed that the WMD threat was real back in 1998 -- Secretary of Defense Cohen went so far as to opine on a weekly talk show that Saddam might use anthrax against us -- and as has been pointed out, we still had that fear in 2002.

Oh, and at some point, there had to be consequences for Saddam giving the finger to no less than 16 UNSC binding resolutions, most connected to WMD.
   3537. Ron J2 Posted: April 18, 2013 at 04:05 PM (#4418297)
And to answer the questions in 3526.

1. Nah he was bluffing. More concerned about Iran not believing he had (at minimum) chemical agents than about the west believing he did.

2. I believe Dick Armitage on this. Powell gave the presentation in good faith

3. Cheney has a history of believing something and trying to find evidence to support it. See for instance Team B. Bush is seemingly remarkably incurious.

I believe Richard Clark when he said that the first reaction of some of the neocons in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 was that it was an opportunity to go after Iraq.
   3538. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 04:10 PM (#4418303)
Again with the term WMD. It obscures more than it elucidates for this, because it runs the gamut from basic chemical weapons to the Tsar Bomba.

So lets be clear what we're talking about, the belief that Iraq was a nation with a stockpile of chemical weapons which was actively trying to hide those weapons. That's a frustrating situation, but it's not cause for a war.

I don't know that I ever had much of strong opinion on the Iraq sanctions, at some point I became moderately opposed due to the humanitarian costs and lack of effectiveness. But I'm not sure when that was, since I was 13 in 1995.
   3539. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 04:16 PM (#4418305)
How the heck was he going to anthrax us, JE? And if he did, do you think we wouldn't have completely wrecked him? With considerably more global backing than we had via the "coalition of the willing"?
   3540. JE (Jason) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 04:18 PM (#4418307)
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."

Um, what do we think "severest consequences for Iraq" means?

[Sorry, but I have to change for a reception. I am happy to continue the conversation at another time.]
   3541. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 18, 2013 at 04:22 PM (#4418312)
Oh, and at some point, there had to be consequences for Saddam giving the finger to no less than 16 UNSC binding resolutions, most connected to WMD.


Why? And even if why, why the US (Yes I remember the coalition of the willing, or whatever it was called)?

How many "binding" UN resolutions have been ignored or gotten a wrist slapping?

And I am still waiting to hear a rousing defense of why containment was so important?

   3542. Ron J2 Posted: April 18, 2013 at 04:27 PM (#4418317)
Oh I'm just reading on the Hutton inquiry. The official look into Britain's pre-war intelligence efforts.

Apparently there was a great deal of internal concern about the case being made. For instance, "Very long way to go. I think. Think we're in a lot of trouble with this as it now stands."

And Blair's chief of staff is on record with, "does nothing to demonstrate a threat, let alone an imminent threat from Saddam"

(from a summary of the report) In part, this involved the systematic filtering out of anything that might point to a conclusion other than the one the government wanted us to reach. At Powell's [that's Jonathan Powell, Blair's chief of staff not Colin Powell -- RNJ]behest, a key phrase revealing the JIC's assessment that Saddam would use chemical or biological weapons only in self-defence was struck. The observation that he did not have the capability to strike Britain was similarly removed.

Alistair Campbell actually gave orders for the intel community to come up with something "new" and "revelatory" -- which in turn produced the 45 minutes to launch BS. (It's worth noting that this claim was never vetted by the experts in the field. As I've said before I knew this was BS at the time the claim was made and so should any thinking person)
   3543. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 18, 2013 at 04:28 PM (#4418320)
I believe Richard Clark when he said that the first reaction of some of the neocons in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 was that it was an opportunity to go after Iraq.


Ron Paul also allegedly told his aides the very same thing- the Bush Admin was going to use 9/11 as a pretext to go after Iraq.

Recall that it did Bush no favors that it turned out Saddam didn't have WMD,


I believe that the admin thought Sadaam had WMD- had at least enough that they'd be able to wave it in front of cameras later- I think the fact that Iraq had essentially abandoned its WMD program years earlier took them by surprise. (and the total abandonment also seems to have taken Sadaam by surprise- I mean he had to know they had no active "program" but he seems to think they still had retained some field ready munitions from the earlier programs, but as it turns out they had not)

Nuclear weapons are a massive undertaking
Chemical and biological weapons are "smaller," but still messy and expensive- also they are not actually very effective MILITARY weapons (conventional munitions are far more efficient at most military tasks)- the "value" that such weapons has tends to be tied to its ability to terrorize and deter- and Iraq had already used chemical weapons- against Iran and against domestic opponents, at which point Saddam's regime could reap all the tangible benefits of having such weapons (i.e., if people know they are going to get gassed if they do "X" they are far less likely to do "X")- without actually incurring the financial cost of maintaining such a program.

As it turns out, once the war began (2nd one) our intelligence agencies were unable to give our military ANY actionable intelligence vis a vis WMD targets in Iraq- which should have been a huge red flag (our earlier failure to give such information to UN weapons inspectors could have been, and was, written off as us protecting our sources/intelligence gathering capabilities)- in the run up to Gulf War 2 we acted as if we had hard information on Iraq's WMD program- but we did not.



   3544. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 18, 2013 at 04:31 PM (#4418321)
And JE, you are welcome, and glad to pick up later. Have a good time.
   3545. Ron J2 Posted: April 18, 2013 at 04:33 PM (#4418324)
#3543 They honestly thought they had actionable intel on the locations of the WMDs. They just happened to believe stories told by people with agendas (in at least one case the agenda was basically, "stop hurting me and I'll say what you want")

Remember, they ordered the UN inspectors out because of a genuine belief that they were complicit with Iraq (or incompetent). Dead easy to find senior people saying this.
   3546. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 18, 2013 at 04:53 PM (#4418356)
(in at least one case the agenda was basically, "stop hurting me and I'll say what you want")


and another guy relied upon by neo-cons was basically an Iranian agent.
   3547. Ron J2 Posted: April 18, 2013 at 04:56 PM (#4418358)
Incidentally Ray there's a story on a bombing in Baghdad (27 killed dozens injured) that concludes,

"Although violence has decreased in Iraq since the peak of the insurgency in 2006 and 2007, bombings are still common."

This is what I was talking about. 2006 and 2007 were frankly worse than the Saddam years. Right now? Still pretty shitty. You can be plausibly optimistic but as I've said, the current state of affairs is not exactly a success story and the standards to be compared to are very low.
   3548. Ron J2 Posted: April 18, 2013 at 04:59 PM (#4418362)
#3546 editorial comment on the reliability of another source was his code name. Curveball.
   3549. zenbitz Posted: April 18, 2013 at 05:00 PM (#4418363)
We should take steps -- sometimes by promoting opposition movements, sometimes by force -- to take out sponsors of terrorism if they threaten US interests.

One day we may have to use military force against Iran, particularly if the mullahs remain in charge. Hopefully, it won't be necessary.


This is why the terrorists win. This is why the terrorists, in the long run, always win - because they always provoke a response and that response is always violent (usually more violent than the original attack). This, in turn merely emboldens surviving terrorists and creates new ones. Can you slow them down? Yes. Can you make it expensive for them in blood and treasure? Yes. But in the long run, you will still lose - unless you are willing to go full Roman on they ass. It will eventually end up costing the Hegemon more than it's worth.

The greatest military and economic power the world has ever seen has spent 12 years and trillions of dollars trying to stop terrorism. They have not stopped it, although arguably they have prevented attacks. These are not the same thing. The War on Terror is exactly like the War on Drugs. It can't be won by ###-for-tat. Game theory doesn't (generally) hold for asymmetrical situations.

In the words of C3P0 "Surrender is a perfectly acceptable alternative in extreme circumstances"

EDIT specifically: WHAT exactly, is Iran going to do to the US? That China, or Russia, or India, or for that matter a pissed off France or Norway or whatever is not?
   3550. Steve Treder Posted: April 18, 2013 at 05:03 PM (#4418368)
The War on Terror is exactly like the War on Drugs. It can't be won by ###-for-tat.

Precisely.

(And, ya gotta love the earnest Primer blue-language nanny.)
   3551. zenbitz Posted: April 18, 2013 at 05:07 PM (#4418373)
Did Bush and Cheney sincerely believe he had WMDs, and thus engaged in a picking and choosing of the evidence? Or did they completely lie, think that he didn't have them, but decided to use this as a pretext to go to war?


I don't think they cared. I think they wanted enough presentable evidence to do what they wanted to do anyway. They didn't need evidence to convince themselves that Iraq was worth invading, they needed something to feed the press and the slightly-less-incurious members of congress.
   3552. zenbitz Posted: April 18, 2013 at 05:08 PM (#4418374)

I am OK with:

NY Daily News: NY Post :: Democrats : Republicans

Gun to my head, I'll pick the News.
   3553. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 05:17 PM (#4418381)
Curveball


Ahmed Chalabi! God what an #######.

I'm not willing to say that Iraq is better than it was under Saddam when one of the big reasons there's less violence is because all the ethnic cleansing has more or less been completed. At least under Saddam you had Sunni and Shia living side by side without violence. And it's not like the current government is exactly democratic and non-violent.
   3554. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 05:22 PM (#4418388)
So we've got France who was publicly skeptical of the WMD claims.

That doesn't really scream out to me that a ton of governments were pounding the drum that the intel was ginned up.

I'm not trying to argue the point, rather, just making the point that NOW the claim seems silly, but back then it seemed quite valid.
   3555. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 05:26 PM (#4418393)
This is what I was talking about. 2006 and 2007 were frankly worse than the Saddam years. Right now? Still pretty shitty. You can be plausibly optimistic but as I've said, the current state of affairs is not exactly a success story and the standards to be compared to are very low.


I'll know Iraq is OK when the fancy lads at National Review move their annual suck-up cruise to a luxurious week in Baghdad for their writers and dedicated fans. Feel the gratitude of the Iraqi people firsthand, ye proud agitators for liberation!
   3556. Steve Treder Posted: April 18, 2013 at 05:27 PM (#4418394)
NOW the claim seems silly, but back then it seemed quite valid

Right, but as has been pointed out here multiple times, so what? So what if Saddam did have some operational chemical arsenal that had eluded detection by the inspectors? It still wouldn't render his military a credible threat to any neighbor, and most certainly not to the US.
   3557. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 05:28 PM (#4418396)
FBI has released photos of two suspects in the Boston bombings.

eta: Here's the first one, showing the two suspects
   3558. Publius Publicola Posted: April 18, 2013 at 05:29 PM (#4418401)
I believe Richard Clark when he said that the first reaction of some of the neocons in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 was that it was an opportunity to go after Iraq.


IMO, part of the problem with the neocons was the militant Jewish orientation of many of them- Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz, Ledeen, Grossman, Libby, Abrams, Bolten and the two Kristols, whow ere working in the Bush II administration, and you had Kagan, Podhoretz, Krauthammer, Pipes and folks like that providing the intellectual fodder in the mass media to support an overtly militant foreign policy reorienting. These guys conflated US and Israeli interests, amalgamating the two, and using the military might of one to serve the security interests of the other. It's still unclear, as big as a pain in the ass Saddam was, whether he was actually a US security asset, as he was a bulwark against Iranian expansionist aims.

He's gone now and Iran no longer has to consider Iraq as it calculates the risk/benefit of what it's doing in Lebanon, Syria, the Persian Gulf etc.
   3559. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 05:31 PM (#4418404)
Right, but as has been pointed out here multiple times, so what? So what if Saddam did have some operational chemical arsenal that had eluded detection by the inspectors? It still wouldn't render his military a credible threat to any neighbor, and most certainly not to the US.


Fair enough, Steve, but were there nations making that point?

Or even many Democrats here in the US? IIRC most Democrats voted for the war. And the above point could have been made even if Democrats had been lied to by Bush.
   3560. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 05:36 PM (#4418409)
FBI has released photos of two suspects in the Boston bombings.

eta: Here's the first one, showing the two suspects


The Post is not interested. They have "Jeter re-fractures ankle" as their top story.

Burn them!
   3561. Tilden Katz Posted: April 18, 2013 at 05:36 PM (#4418410)
IIRC most Democrats voted for the war. And the above point could have been made even if Democrats had been lied to by Bush.


29-21 in favor in the Senate (and only one no from a Senator up for election that year). 82-126 in the House. Democrats are spineless.
   3562. Ron J2 Posted: April 18, 2013 at 05:38 PM (#4418412)
Also Ray, as noted the British assessment of Saddam was that even if he had chemical weapons he'd only use them in self-defense and couldn't reach Great Britain (never mind the US)

And further note that the internal assessment of the Brits was that no compelling case had been made.
   3563. Steve Treder Posted: April 18, 2013 at 05:39 PM (#4418415)
Or even many Democrats here in the US?

My Democratic representative in the US House, Mike Honda, and the Democratic rep for my neighboring district, Zoe Lofgren, both were, loud and clear. Many thousands of us marched, multiple times in many cities, in protest against the build-up to the invasion, in the winter of 2002/2003. It's ridiculous to ask whether the argument against the necessity of the war was made. Of course it was made, over and over again. The fact that way too many people didn't want to hear it doesn't mean we weren't saying it.
   3564. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 05:39 PM (#4418416)
Post:

He urged citizens to keep an eye out for the two men, one wearing a black hat and the other a white cap.


Uhh, something tells me they no longer are wearing those.
   3565. Steve Treder Posted: April 18, 2013 at 05:40 PM (#4418417)
Democrats are spineless.

Hugely so, by and large. It's extremely f@cking aggravating.
   3566. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 05:41 PM (#4418418)
Most Democrats did not vote for the war though a large, cowardly, minority did (and they were a majority in the Senate).

And so long as we're talking about attitudes on the invasion of Iraq in 2003, as of the week before the war, 40% of the country didn't believe the war would be worth it. It's not like there wasn't a great deal of opposition both in the US and all around the world to the war.

eta: Democrats were spineless. But that vote cost both Kerry and Clinton the presidency, so hopefully they ####### learned something. I'd also note that the Iraq war was an intraparty battle that the hawks decidedly lost- Joe Lieberman couldn't win a Dem primary for dog catcher these days and being against the Iraq war, or at least apologizing for prior support of the war, was a litmus test in the mid 2000s Democratic primaries.
   3567. Mike A Posted: April 18, 2013 at 05:42 PM (#4418420)
The suspect photos aren't particularly good - I had hoped for better - but maybe someone can pull/identify something from them. Or perhaps someone out there took a better photo.

A bit surprised there were (allegedly) two people acting in concert.
   3568. Ron J2 Posted: April 18, 2013 at 05:43 PM (#4418421)
#3553 Worth noting that in 2006/2007 it's extremely probable that many of the killing were carried out by the interior ministry. At least that's seemingly no longer part of the problem. God knows it's bad enough without what amounts to a government ministry functioning as a terrorist organization.
   3569. spike Posted: April 18, 2013 at 05:44 PM (#4418422)
I'll know Iraq is OK when the fancy lads at National Review move their annual suck-up cruise to a luxurious week in Baghdad for their writers and dedicated fans

Are you kidding? It's been as safe as a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime for over 6 years now. It was just before the surge worked.
   3570. Publius Publicola Posted: April 18, 2013 at 05:45 PM (#4418423)
The fact that way too many people didn't want to hear it doesn't mean we weren't saying it.


Steve, you have to admit that the left was fairly supine on this. I don't remember much resistance. There wasn't a lot of fulminating in the press. Key liberal pundits were OK with it. I think it would be more accurate to say the left was divided (as it often is), and the left being divided gave the right an open door to proceed. Part of it was the previous Iraq war, its popularity, and that it was such a cakewalk (figuratively speaking).

The right still has to eat the crow though. It was their policy.
   3571. Greg K Posted: April 18, 2013 at 05:45 PM (#4418424)
(from a summary of the report) In part, this involved the systematic filtering out of anything that might point to a conclusion other than the one the government wanted us to reach. At Powell's [that's Jonathan Powell, Blair's chief of staff not Colin Powell -- RNJ]behest, a key phrase revealing the JIC's assessment that Saddam would use chemical or biological weapons only in self-defence was struck. The observation that he did not have the capability to strike Britain was similarly removed.

Alistair Campbell actually gave orders for the intel community to come up with something "new" and "revelatory" -- which in turn produced the 45 minutes to launch BS. (It's worth noting that this claim was never vetted by the experts in the field. As I've said before I knew this was BS at the time the claim was made and so should any thinking person)

This sounds eerily like the "editing" of the intelligence reports in In the Loop.
   3572. Ron J2 Posted: April 18, 2013 at 05:46 PM (#4418425)
#3564 What if they switched hats?

I will note that one of the most notorious group of bank robbers was arrested because one of them was too stoned to dispose of their disguises when he was supposed to.
   3573. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 05:49 PM (#4418427)
. It's ridiculous to ask whether the argument against the necessity of the war was made. Of course it was made, over and over again. The fact that way too many people didn't want to hear it doesn't mean we weren't saying it.


Well, granted, but perhaps if you folks wouldn't hit an anti-war note virtually ever time you sing, you'd be taken more seriously when you actually have valid points.

The boy who cried wolf, and all of that.
   3574. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 05:49 PM (#4418430)
The right still has to eat the crow though. It was their policy.


As should those on the left who supported the war. Guys like Glenn Greenwald go around acting like the most sanctimonious of ######## and calling anyone who disagrees with them on drone strike policy to be moral monsters after backing the ####### invasion of Iraq. I'm only disappointed that the Democratic party wasn't purged more thoroughly of the ####### establishment hacks who were happy to sign off on the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis so that they would still be invited to all the right parties. #### those people. They will burn in hell.
   3575. Steve Treder Posted: April 18, 2013 at 05:51 PM (#4418432)
Steve, you have to admit that the left was fairly supine on this. I don't remember much resistance.

I don't know what your definition of "resistance" is. From the wikipedia article linked to in #3566:

Beginning in 2002, and continuing after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, large-scale protests against the Iraq War were held in many cities worldwide, often coordinated to occur simultaneously around the world. After the biggest series of demonstrations, on February 15, 2003, New York Times writer Patrick Tyler claimed that they showed that there were two superpowers on the planet, the United States and worldwide public opinion.

These demonstrations against the war were mainly organized by anti-war organizations, many of whom had been formed in opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan. In some Arab countries demonstrations were organized by the state. Europe saw the biggest mobilization of protesters, including a rally of three million people in Rome, which is listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest ever anti-war rally.

According to the French academic Dominique Reynié, between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war.


Yes, the protests were unsuccessful at changing Bush's course of action, but what exactly more were we supposed to be doing to make the opposition visible?
   3576. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 05:52 PM (#4418433)
This sounds eerily like the "editing" of the intelligence reports in In the Loop.


Where do you think Iannucci got the idea? I got PPWIP and I'm gonna climb the mountain of conflict!
   3577. Steve Treder Posted: April 18, 2013 at 05:53 PM (#4418434)
Well, granted, but perhaps if you folks wouldn't hit an anti-war note virtually ever time you sing, you'd be taken more seriously when you actually have valid points.

The boy who cried wolf, and all of that.


Oh, good lord, Ray. Stop acting like such a stooge.
   3578. Tilden Katz Posted: April 18, 2013 at 05:54 PM (#4418437)
As should those on the left who supported the war. Guys like Glenn Greenwald go around acting like the most sanctimonious of ######## and calling anyone who disagrees with them on drone strike policy to be moral monsters after backing the ####### invasion of Iraq. I'm only disappointed that the Democratic party wasn't purged more thoroughly of the ####### establishment hacks who were happy to sign off on the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis so that they would still be invited to all the right parties. #### those people. They will burn in hell.


This. #### them. #### them all. When hacks like Mark Dayton and Lincoln Chafee can see through the bullshit, there's no excuse for the supposed thinkers on the left to be so blind.
   3579. Publius Publicola Posted: April 18, 2013 at 05:55 PM (#4418440)
The only demonstrations that would have mattered were domestic ones. The Bush Admin didn't give a crap what the French and Germans thought. They don't vote. And there just wasn't a whole lot of domestic protestation. Part of the reason for that was the misinformation campaign but Democratic members of the foreign relations committee should have made the public aware the intelligence was weak, non-existent or fabricated. And banged the drum that a war in Iraq would have been a distraction from the war on terror. But it really didn't happen.
   3580. Steve Treder Posted: April 18, 2013 at 05:58 PM (#4418443)
The only demonstrations that would have mattered were domestic ones.

Well, there were dozens if not hundreds of domestic demonstrations, in cities all over the country. How did you fail to notice them?
   3581. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:00 PM (#4418446)
Beginning in 2002, and continuing after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, large-scale protests against the Iraq War were held in many cities worldwide, often coordinated to occur simultaneously around the world. After the biggest series of demonstrations, on February 15, 2003, New York Times writer Patrick Tyler claimed that they showed that there were two superpowers on the planet, the United States and worldwide public opinion.

These demonstrations against the war were mainly organized by anti-war organizations, many of whom had been formed in opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan. In some Arab countries demonstrations were organized by the state. Europe saw the biggest mobilization of protesters, including a rally of three million people in Rome, which is listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest ever anti-war rally.

According to the French academic Dominique Reynié, between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war.


Signed Steve Treder.

:-)

Seriously, I remember the anti-war demonstrations in 2003. There were some in New York. But they were so small and lame that I got the feeling that they were comprised of a combination of old leftists who wanted to re-live the Vietnam era and young leftists who were upset that they had missed the Vietnam era, and wanted to pretend that this was that.

The protests generally fell on deaf ears and made no real impact on people.
   3582. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:02 PM (#4418447)
Well, there were dozens if not hundreds of domestic demonstrations, in cities all over the country. How did you fail to notice them?


As stated I think the problem was that people _did_ notice them -- and saw them for what they were: lackluster and nostalgic of an era gone by.
   3583. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:02 PM (#4418448)
The only demonstrations that would have mattered were domestic ones.


No, what you mean to say is "no protest could have possibly mattered because war was decided upon long before even the AUMF Iraq vote." There was literally more than a million people in the streets on February 15.
   3584. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:04 PM (#4418450)
The protests generally fell on deaf ears and made no real impact


There were 300-400k people at the minimum at that protest, Ray. But you're right, they fell on deaf ears, and they made no real impact because media coverage of the protests was that they were "were comprised of a combination of old leftists who wanted to re-live the Vietnam era and young leftists who were upset that they had missed the Vietnam era." So good job being a sucker for warmonger propaganda. You're obviously an old hand at being misled.
   3585. Steve Treder Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:05 PM (#4418451)
The protests generally fell on deaf ears and made no real impact on people.

Yes, Ray, this is not in dispute. But there was vocal and visible opposition to the war before it started, and the argument we were making was precisely that the war would very likely be a huge cost/benefit fail. And it was.

We "small and lame" protesters were proven utterly right by history. The fact that our argument fell on your deaf ears is not something you should feel all smug about.
   3586. Steve Treder Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:06 PM (#4418452)
So good job being a sucker for warmonger propaganda. You're obviously an old hand at being misled.

He's the poster child for gullibility.
   3587. bunyon Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:07 PM (#4418455)
Well, granted, but perhaps if you folks wouldn't hit an anti-war note virtually ever time you sing, you'd be taken more seriously when you actually have valid points.

The boy who cried wolf, and all of that.


Anti-war should be the default position. It shouldn't be incumbent on anyone to show why we shouldn't go to war but on those who want war to show why it is necessary. Jesus. Was your conclusion that war was necessary that anti-war people thought it was a bad idea, so, therefore, it must be a good idea?

The Republicans would have me in their camp probably if it weren't for this kind of logic.

While we're at it, the fault - if there is fault outside the narrow Bush II circle - lies mostly with the MSM. They completely, totally, fell in line with the war, didn't cover anti-war protesters or arguments and didn't really ask any questions about weapons, etc. I have 3 ideas as to why:

1) they're incompetent fools
2) they were so afraid of looking like the liberal stooges the right accuses them of being that they were frozen in place
3) they knew that an invasion of Iraq would produce news, easy, sweet news of the bloody, ugly and expensive kind for decades to come

I'd guess a fair mix of all of it.
   3588. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:08 PM (#4418456)
Man, the news media is just having a ####### awful week. CNN and others completely #### the bed yesterday on the arrest thing (and CNN says it's dark skinned people when the actual people are pretty clearly light skinned), and now Reuters publishes their obit of George Soros while he's still alive. By the end of this week Buzzfeed will be the only reputable news source.
   3589. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:11 PM (#4418458)
I'd guess a fair mix of all of it.


I agree, but I don't think they thought it would be decades long. There was also the whole macho bullshit that comes with warhawking from the commentariat which many liberal war supporters fell into. Just look at Christopher Hitchens going from a trotskyite ####### to a neocon ####### or Michael Kelly gleefully calling people who didn't support the war cowards. Man, I'm sad anyone died in the Iraq war, but outside of some of the worst of the Hussein regime, Michael Kelly is up there. If anyone deserved to die in a pointless war it's one of the ####### cheerleaders.
   3590. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:12 PM (#4418461)
FBI has released photos of two suspects in the Boston bombings.
eta: Here's the first one, showing the two suspects


The Post is not interested.


Photos of suspects is yesterday's news to the New York Post. Been there, botched that.
   3591. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:13 PM (#4418462)
Anti-war should be the default position.


Default, not exclusive.
   3592. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:16 PM (#4418465)
2) they were so afraid of looking like the liberal stooges the right accuses them of being that they were frozen in place


MSNBC firing their highest-rated host because they didn't want anti-war voices in prime time give you a clue?
   3593. zenbitz Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:16 PM (#4418467)
Look - in case it's not totally obvious by now - there are approximately 14 leftists, total, holding public office in the US above the civic level (i.e, state or federal). Clinton (either one), Feinstein, Obama, Kerry, Pelosi, Ted Kennedy (when alive). These guys (and gals) are not left. They are left-leaning centrists - and Clinton(s) and Kerry barely lean left.

And there were thousands in the streets BUT of course nothing happen. It's hard to get anti-war traction when hardly any 'mericans are being killed. And I mean HARDLY ANY compared to 'nam or anything else. 6500 KIA including Afghanistan, Iraq2, and the WAT. A lot of wounded (40K) it's true... but I am not sure how many of those are serious (i.e, permanently imparing) Probably at least 1/3. And nearly 100% volunteers not draftees.
   3594. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:16 PM (#4418468)
Steve, could you list the major US war efforts you have supported?
   3595. Steve Treder Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:17 PM (#4418472)
This:

Default, not exclusive.


Is not in any way a coherent reply to this:

Was your conclusion that war was necessary that anti-war people thought it was a bad idea, so, therefore, it must be a good idea?
   3596. Steve Treder Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:20 PM (#4418476)
Steve, could you list the major US war efforts you have supported?

- Operation Desert Storm

- Taking out the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11

Had I been alive, I'm certain I would have supported the US in World War II, and probably the Korean War.
   3597. Publius Publicola Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:22 PM (#4418478)
What about Bosnia and that whole mess?
   3598. bunyon Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:23 PM (#4418479)
Anti-war should be the default position.



Default, not exclusive.


Can you only read 10 words at a time? I said immediately after that that it is up to the pro-war folks to make their case. I take it as given that that case should be somehow related to both a direct threat and reality. There was much lower protest (was there any?) against going into Afghanistan because we'd just been attacked by people there. Iraq was spun from whole cloth taking advantage of the fact that a lot of people were still angry about 9/11 and that people like you would naturally side against people like Steve.

Anti-war is absolutely not exclusive. However, if you can't make a convincing case based on reality, we shouldn't be going to war. If you haven't noticed, we've basically had serious leaders in Washington talking about bombing/invading someone for the last 30 years* and they very, very rarely have been aimed at anyone making a serious threat at us.

You sneer at the anti-war people but, on the whole, they have been right far more than the pro-war camp you are defending. They were right in this instance.


* Obviously far longer than that but before that, there was a serious case to be made. WWII is obvious and the Soviets were a threat to us both existential and to our interests in the world. I wouldn't argue the Cold War was handled perfectly but, hey, we won. I really think today's politician's, who came of age in the Cold War, simply can't conceive of there being no war needed at any given moment. There must be an enemy somewhere. Look under every rock! Sadly, a lot of us who grew up in that time feel the same way.
   3599. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:24 PM (#4418480)
Is not in any way a coherent reply to this:

Was your conclusion that war was necessary that anti-war people thought it was a bad idea, so, therefore, it must be a good idea?


My reply to that was embedded in my comments above: as anti-war people are predictably anti-war, they marginalize themselves by failing to ever offer a varying viewpoint.

It doesn't therefore "make war a good idea," it means that they have nothing to add. Kind of like how the Bush admin looked at the 20 pieces of evidence that supported its conclusion, and ignored the 80. The anti-war people do the same thing, by starting with their conclusion and then picking and choosing the evidence that supports it.





   3600. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:25 PM (#4418481)
Steve, could you list the major US war efforts you have supported?


I am not Steve, but maybe you could start the discussion with Wars you have opposed.
Page 36 of 66 pages ‹ First  < 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
JE (Jason)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogTrevor Hoffman's Hall of Fame induction seems inevitable
(1 - 1:07am, Sep 02)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogHBT: Jorge Soler with an extra-base hit in each of his first five games
(2 - 1:02am, Sep 02)
Last: madvillain

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(28 - 1:00am, Sep 02)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogRobothal: Changed [Manny] Ramirez enjoyed helping Cubs prospects grow
(12 - 12:48am, Sep 02)
Last: Cargo Cultist

NewsblogPhoto of the day: Bill Murray, indy league ticket-taker
(102 - 12:27am, Sep 02)
Last: Bunny Vincennes

NewsblogNitkowski: Wanted: Major League manager...sort of.
(7 - 12:23am, Sep 02)
Last: steagles

NewsblogRon Roenicke rips into home-plate umpire
(17 - 12:18am, Sep 02)
Last: Bunny Vincennes

NewsblogAstros Fire Bo Porter
(54 - 12:16am, Sep 02)
Last: Zach

NewsblogBlue Jays Acquire Mayberry Jr.
(7 - 12:10am, Sep 02)
Last: Infinite Joost (Voxter)

NewsblogAthletics Acquire Adam Dunn
(43 - 11:46pm, Sep 01)
Last: Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66)

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread August, 2014
(986 - 11:25pm, Sep 01)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

NewsblogOT:  2014 College Football pre-season thread
(101 - 11:17pm, Sep 01)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

NewsblogNo-hitter! Four Phillies pitchers combine to blank the Braves
(10 - 11:12pm, Sep 01)
Last: Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq.

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - September 2014
(5 - 11:07pm, Sep 01)
Last: DanO

NewsblogTigers' Miguel Cabrera appears to re-injure ankle, leaves game
(19 - 9:53pm, Sep 01)
Last: AJMcCringleberry

Page rendered in 1.0854 seconds
52 querie(s) executed