When the Barnarians leave Washington, will our capital feel the relief of an epic enema? Don't bet on it.
What will Washington be like when the Barbarians leave town next year?…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
The Fun Of Waiting For The Barbarians To Leave Washington - Comments Page 3
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - moonraven
I believe I have a copyright on those chainsaws from my post on Charlton Heston on the Sicko thread.
77 - Clavos
Point taken, gonz.
But, exaggeration and broad strokes are the essence of political satire, no?
It's a POV thing - all depends on whose ox is gettin' gored.
78 - gonzo marx
the movie Heathers, more than 10 years old - "fuck me gently with a chainsaw"...the rusty was done months later and is common parlance in certain parts of the Net
what fluttering carrion eaters believe is of no importance and bear little resemblance to objective reality
Excelsior?
79 - moonraven
Not a question of resemblance, it IS reality.
Poor, deluded teen video-watcher. Your brain is fried.
80 - gonzo marx
dod yas hear something?...sounded like a flying mammal hitting the bell in the olde church tower!
Excelsior?
81 - bliffle
Pardon me for interrupting the personal digressions, decipherable only among the illuminati, but to return for a moment to the subject, I am writing a history of the past 7 years called "The Worst And The Dullest".
82 - Clavos
And???
83 - Dave Nalle
You've taken my breath away.
Good lord, don't start singing...
You CAN be nice. In fact, you have quite a number of nice bones in you.
I'll say one last nice thing. Your article on Mel Gibson is intelligent and interesting. The problem is that it's the only one of all your articles which is anything but Bush-bashing.
Thank you, dude. There may be more appreciation of each other, and each other's POV, than we dare to openly confess.
I understand your POV, I just think it's pointless and counterproductive.
That said, you say: "You and many like you oppose the war because you ... oppose the idea of the US engaging in a war to spread our values."
Absolutely. You're right. If you have to spread your values by attacking someone who is no threat to you, maybe there is something very wrong with your values.
So when you see the thug beating on an old lady you cross the street because the thug isn't beating on you?
Do you see the failure of your liberalism here? I've got my liberalism and I'm not going to share?
"Engaging in a war to spread our values ..." Don't you see the utterly bizarre Orwellian contradiction there? You're saying, "hey, man, I'm going to hurt you bad to spread my values."
Do you really, truly think that the intent of the Iraq war was EVER to harm the people of Iraq?
Dave, you never cease to amaze me -- such a strange blend of reason and total unreason you are.
It's all reason, it's just that it's not based on your premises.
Dave
84 - gonzo marx
@ #85
waitaminnit..i gotta call bullshit here on a few counts
the Analogy of the little olde lady is fatuous and incomplete...
it should go, see the old lady, run over there with your gang, destroy her apartment building, fuck up the sewage system/plumbing and rip out the electrical system so it only works a few hours a day...destroy apartments in the building, killing some residents here and there...rather than turning the bully over to the cops, you let the old lady lynch him...
that's simplistic , but gives an Idea, and much more accurate than the previous example
but let's flip the script here on the one who thinks that "spreading liberalism" is a good thing done pre-emptively
how about India and China, seeing that W is a crazed dictator, bullying the old Lady Liberty, decides to invade to spread their Concept of Liberalism in a pre-emptive invasion
destroy our infrastructure, kill folks... Yankees/Red Sox rivalry?..kill em all!
North South rivalry?
East Coast versus West Coast rappers?
kill em...anybody ya ain't sure of, toss em into prison for some waterboarding, too bad most of the Interrogators don't speak the language...
on and on...don't think most folks would go for it if it happened to U.S., so why is it good doing it to others who didn't Ask for the help?
"Do you really, truly think that the intent of the Iraq war was EVER to harm the people of Iraq?"
no clear Idea of the intent, but we sure as fuck can count the bodies..ours and theirs
any that still try and defend this bullshit invasion after all the facts that have come out in the years since it began are either delusional, or deliberately spinning, imo
Excelsior?
85 - Dan
Gonzo,
the invasion of Irag is a very intelligent calculation that had to happen in order to preserve the very future of evolutionary civilizational progress.
People can live anyway they want, and we'll find out how the people of Iraq want to do it.
Elements within their primitive society should not be allowed to enforce their enslavement on the rest of us.
That's all it is. Sorry if you can't see it.
If they don't subscribe to the philosophy of 'live and let live', then yes, "kill em".
Why not you go over and offer yourself up. If you think that our "way of life" is inferior?
The Western culture that most of us think of as the pinnacle of advanced civilization is under assault.
I know, let's all wear burka's and grovel 5 times a day, toward some precise longitudinal coordinates.
No matter how brazenly stupid the spiritial sentiments, they're not valid if not directional.
86 - Dave Nalle
it should go, see the old lady, run over there with your gang, destroy her apartment building, fuck up the sewage system/plumbing and rip out the electrical system so it only works a few hours a day...destroy apartments in the building, killing some residents here and there...rather than turning the bully over to the cops, you let the old lady lynch him...
I'm afraid I have to call bullshit on your claim of bullshit. Your more lengthy analogy might work from 20/20 hindsight, but it's not nearly as accurate as mine in describing the apparent situation as we saw it in advance, which was quite simple.
26 million people whose representatives told us they wanted to be free of a murderous dictator. An opportunity to free them at relatively little cost to ourselves with the assurance there were secularists just waiting to pick up and turn it all into a nice democracy (remember Chalaby?).
At that point it seemed like a win/win situation and it was analagous to helping out the little old lady.
but let's flip the script here on the one who thinks that "spreading liberalism" is a good thing done pre-emptively
Who would that be? Bill Clinton? Someone at the CFR?
(silly hypotheticals ignored)
on and on...don't think most folks would go for it if it happened to U.S., so why is it good doing it to others who didn't Ask for the help?
Ah, but they DID ask for our help. Various expats not only asked for our help, but assured us everything would be cool once we deposed Saddam.
any that still try and defend this bullshit invasion after all the facts that have come out in the years since it began are either delusional, or deliberately spinning, imo
There's an enormous difference between admitting the apparent viability of the original premise and accepting the positive intent of the invasion, and endorsing the mess it turned into.
Dave
87 - bliffle
Dan,
Maybe you should see a doctor.
"the invasion of Irag is a very intelligent calculation that had to happen in order to preserve the very future of evolutionary civilizational progress."
Who, pray tell, made that 'intelligent calculation'?
88 - bliffle
I'm afraid I DO remember Chalaby, Dave:
"people whose representatives told us they wanted to be free of a murderous dictator. An opportunity to free them at relatively little cost to ourselves with the assurance there were secularists just waiting to pick up and turn it all into a nice democracy (remember Chalaby?).
"
I'm sure their families have mixed feelings about you trivializing the deaths of 3600 US soldiers as "little cost to ourselves". Little cost to those patriots who are standing on the sidelines, I suppose.
89 - gonzo marx
"26 million people whose representatives told us they wanted to be free of a murderous dictator. An opportunity to free them at relatively little cost to ourselves with the assurance there were secularists just waiting to pick up and turn it all into a nice democracy (remember Chalaby?)."
so, you mean believe "Curveball" and a hand full of others who had something to gain, then when you cherry pick and go by what they say..it's all ok?
so, if we have a few folks from the Sons of the Confederacy leave the country and go ask China to straighten the mess out here in the States, that's ok with you?
sorry, pure bullshit once again..but nice to see you never retreat from your role as Apologist
and Dan - umm..did my time in the military, so that point is moot...and please tell me, how many Iraqis attacked the US?
if you truly believe that any outside culture has the Ability to "force" U.S. into ANYTHING, then you need to seek psychiatric help for severe psychotic delusions
Excelsior?
90 - Adam Ash
Gonzo:
You warm my heart. I don't have to say anything -- just watch open-mouthed as you mow down the Barbarians and their apologists.
BTW, you all, the analogy os the bully who hurts the guy he says he's helping, and Dave's flipping of that analogy to the bully hurting the old lady and do you stand back or intervene? -- those are two great analogies that really help one think clearly about Iraq. Sometimes we at BNC come up with intelligent sparks to shed light amid all the mudslinnging.
Baronius:
You say --
"Adam's articles are really out there, but he's decent in his replies. I like that. I still think he's wrong on nearly everything. My philosophy is taken from Clint in Heartbreak Ridge: you can beat me, you can kill me, just don't bore me."
Man, you don't know how much I appreciate that. Thank you, dude.
Adam Ash.
91 - martheray
Dan,
Men do not wear burkhas in Iraq--nor, for that matter, do women.
Some men wear thobes and some women wear abayas.
And YOU, clearly, have never been to the the Middle East--nor anyplace else beyond the local mall.
Western civilzation, indeed! The cradle of civilization (period) was destroyed by the barbarians of the US and UK military.
[Edited]
92 - Dave Nalle
I'm sure their families have mixed feelings about you trivializing the deaths of 3600 US soldiers as "little cost to ourselves". Little cost to those patriots who are standing on the sidelines, I suppose.
Bliffle, spare me your antagonistic bullshit [Edited] misreading of what I wrote. [Edited] I wasn't talking about what actually happened, but about the expectations we had going into the war, and you're not so stupid that you didn't know that.
Dave
93 - moonraven
Before anyone pees his pants--I am not cloning myself on this site--simply used a sobriquet I use on something else.
[Edited]
94 - moonraven
Nalle,
This is not the time to natter on about military expectations before the invasion of Iraq.
You are NOT in the inner circle of the Pentagon, but in a trailer in Texas, so knock off trying to pretend that you knew--or currently know--anything about pre-invasion expectations.
The horses have been out of the barn for more than 4 years--stop trying to lock it.
95 - Dave Nalle
MR, when did I talk about military expectations? [Edited] I was referring to public expectations which I'm far more qualified to comment on than someone in Mexico is.
And please stop posting your comments over and over again. They're hardly worth posting once.
Dave
96 - REMF
"So when you see the thug beating on an old lady you cross the street because the thug isn't beating on you?"
- Dave Nalle
Of course. And then you get someone else to attack the thug for you.
- MCH
97 - Dave Nalle
Very good point, MCH. In the analogy you call the police. In the larger parallel you call the US military. Of course that's what you do, because they have the training and they work for you as a taxpayer. Very good job pointing that out.
Dave
98 - gonzo marx
not only call in the military, but hire just as many "thugs for money" (read: KBR and more)
not only do they turn the thug over to the old lady and her relatives for lynching...but then after trashing the apartment building...the thugs for hire are going to move in permanently!!! (those pesky bases that were contracted out)
on and on
would have been one thing to capture Saddam and haul his ass before the World Court (which i had thought should have been done in Gulf War 1), but the entirety of just how fucked up everything was coming from this Administration can be summed up by Rumsfeld standing there with a screen behind him showing the looting saying "freedom is messy"
at that moment, US troops were guarding the Oil Ministry building while a few blocks away the Museum was being looted of some of the oldest artifacts in the world (merely one example)
so let's see we have
1- proven wrong assertions for why the US went in
2 - uncontrolled looting and rioting after toppling Saddam's government/army
3- 4 years later and still conditions in Baghdad are worse than when the invasion began
there's more, but those who understand don't need them listed, and those who still support this fiasco can't be swayed no matter what facts are presented them
Excelsior?
99 - Nancy
IMO, poetic justice would be kidnapping Rummy, Cheney, Wolfie, & the others, & turning them loose in the street of Baghdad. Wonder how long they'd last?
100 - moonraven
Nalle can go with them on that direct charter flight ripped off from the CIA.
He won't last long either.
And Nalle, YOU are no more qualified to post an OPINION than anyone else here. And certainly not more qualified than a well-read, well-traveled and highly aware person such as myself.
By your own deluded logic, you have posted several times that you are more qualified to post an OPINION about LATIN AMERICA than I am--despite your belief that Venezuela is part of Central America.
Sorry, pal, you can't have it both ways.
In your case, maybe not even ONE way.
101 - Magilla Gorilla
There are a lot of wars where America was not involved in the basic precept of the struggle, does that make them illegetimate?
102 - REMF
Re #97;
"...Of course that's what you do, because they have the training and they work for you as a taxpayer..."
- Dave Nalle
Plus it's much safer that way, too.
- MCH
103 - moonraven
Thanks to the US government, the concept of safety has become obsolete.
Along with habeas corpus, right to free speech, right to privacy and the Geneva Conventions--AND HONOR.
104 - Baronius
If I could go back to an earlier topic, what's with this hatred of the rich? Rich people aren't better than other people, but they're not necessarily worse. Self-made wealthy people are better at something than most of the rest of us.
Generally, wealthy people deserve their money. If they committed a crime to get their wealth, they should be prosecuted for it, not for being rich. There's no reason to think a CEO doesn't deserve his salary. I shouldn't have any say in how much someone pays someone else.
Ash says that income inequality is one of the great problems facing our country. Why? If someone has more money than me, it doesn't affect me - except to the extent that he crowds out the total amount of currency in the world. As an example, let's say the British royal family has 1/1000th of a percent of total British cash. That's a vast fortune, but it only affects the average bloke's money by 1/1000th of a percent. I suffer no loss of wealth when a CEO gets paid, any more than when a diamond is dug up in South Africa.
105 - Zedd
Doc:
I am not sure what moderate means in this context. If it means balanced or not leaning in one direction or another, I would edit your list and take out most of you, including yourself (sorry budd). Clavos will echo the standard Republican jargon unless the topic is Mexicans, you are always faithful to the liberal cause and so is Baritone. Dave is just well dillusional most of the time but certainly tied to a set ideology.
How do you define moderate and why is it a good thing?
Adam:
Great article but the language made me cringe. ftsk man!!! :o)
106 - moonraven
Baronius,
The Gini Coefficient--which is the measure of inequality in the distribution of riches--of the US is starting to look very much like that of Mexico.
Here in Mexico the government tells us that we will have no growth in the economy because it's tied to that of the US.
Are you prepared to tell me that it's the other way around, and that the economy of the US is tied to that of Mexico--which is in turn causing the Gini Coefficient of the US to rise?
The two parts of the world which have the most iunequal distribution of welth are 1. Latin America and 2. Africa.
With your thinking, those are desirable situations and the US should try to be just like them.
I DO care what CEOs get paid--as they are pñaid WAY too much and the folks lower down the pecking order get paid much less in real money than they did 30 years ago, 20 years ago--and even 10 years ago so that the guys at the top can receive those obscene salaries.
When wealth is not increasing--and it is not--it means that when someone gets a big slice of the pie the other folks get smaller slices.
THat may be fine with you, but I think it's unjust.
107 - moonraven
"Moderate" is one of theose misunderstaood words, like "impartial".
I was reading an essay last night by the Italian writer and philosopher, Umberto Eco, in which he gave a good description of what it means to be impartial.
He says--and I agree--that it implies thoroughly examining both sides of an issue--and THEN making a decision about which is more persuasive.
That's also what's called making an INFORMED decision.
What passes for moderation on this forum--and very little DOES--is simply not having much of an idea about the issue, and NOT trying to act as if one is informed when one is NOT.
108 - moonraven
Right--a page right out of Latin America, MCH.
109 - zingzing
zedd: "I am not sure what moderate means in this context. If it means balanced or not leaning in one direction or another, I would edit your list and take out most of you..."
i think he means that most of us aren't extremists for whatever side we take. i'm certainly more liberal than conservative, but i wouldn't call myself "far" or "extreme" left. others might, and one would probably never call themselves "far" or "extreme" anyway.
moderate does not mean standing squarely in the middle. you can choose a side, and be a moderate within that spectrum.
if i were an extremist, i'd be a communist or something. of course, i do favor things like welfare and public health and education. but i don't want to see nationalization of industry.
so i'm a moderate liberal. but how do you define liberal? bah... it goes on and on...
110 - moonraven
Is there a virtue in being moderate--that is the REAL question.
The answer is: NO.
If there were fewer moderates in the US, you folks would have clapped Bush and his Gang of petrocriminals in jail years ago.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating--not in thinking about having a bite, sometime.
111 - moonraven
zingzing IS an extremist--in that he has extremely poor impulse control.
In the case of politics that poor impulse control causes him to shoot himself in the foot more often than not.
In this case, extremist does not imply a political spot on the left to right continuum.
A question for the weekend before I leave for The Hammock:
Lee Harvey Oswald: Extremist, Moderate, or Just the Patsy he said he was?
112 - zingzing
"zingzing IS an extremist--in that he has extremely poor impulse control."
no! (well, when responding to you, i suppose you are right. i shouldn't talk to you at all. there really isn't any point, except that i think it's fun. go get your burger.)
"In the case of politics that poor impulse control causes him to shoot himself in the foot more often than not."
only when you disagree with me. or at those times when i am a white male american.
"In this case, extremist does not imply a political spot on the left to right continuum."
of course not. you'd have to say which side if you wanted to imply that.
113 - Colin Ricketts
WHAT A FANTASTIC PIECE. That's all.
Thanks.
114 - bliffle
#104 " July 27, 2007 @ 16:39PM " Baronius
"...
I shouldn't have any say in how much someone pays someone else."
Sure you do, if you're a shareholder. Shouldn't you be able to vote the salary of the officers?
But right now you cannot, if it is not on the BOD agenda. And modern practice is for BODs to suppress shareholder initiated agenda items.
So now we have a situation where the officers of the company control the BOD and are free to set their own policies, especially their own benefits, which they spend most of their time dealing with.
This contributes to positive feedback in the economic system, which is the bane of capitalistic systems since it causes instability and huge swings in economic health between boom and bust. Positive feedback reinforces any swing.
Now that may be good enough for smalltime operators who know no better, but it's starting to cause problems with managers of large employee pension funds, like CALPERS, who are NOT ignorant, and are in fact sophisticated investors and, unlike the average bimbo BC habitue, can see when the company (and their investment) is being looted by the BOD in conspiracy with the officers.
Thus, these sophisticated investors (who REALLY have taken Econ 101, which dreamy BCers only imagine exists, and they've taken 102, 103, 201...etc., as well, and actually understand differential equations, marginal utility, etc.) are dissatisfied with being relegated to the role of onlooker, so they are attempting to force agenda items onto the agendas of the BODs and sent to shareholders to approve.
There are battles ensuing on this important topic in government regulatory agencies, congress, and the civil courts.
Keep your eyes and ears open.
115 - Dr Dreadful
Lee Harvey Oswald: Extremist, Moderate, or Just the Patsy he said he was?
...Or did he do it for a bet?
116 - Baronius
Bliffle - Exactly. If I own stock, I'm the one paying the CEO. It's my right to determine his paycheck.
117 - Dan
Biffle #87 "Dan,
Maybe you should see a doctor."
I do, regularly. He says I'm fit as a fiddle.
"Who, pray tell, made that 'intelligent calculation'?"
The Bush administration. Then it was approved by both houses of congress.
Gonzo #89 " and Dan - umm..did my time in the military, so that point is moot...and please tell me, how many Iraqis attacked the US?"
That's honorable Gonzo. If I had made the point that you should do time in the US military, I guess it would then be moot. I didn't.
Also didn't suggest that Iraqis attacked the US. Unless you count the numerous anti-aircraft targeting incidents carried out in violation of the cease fire agreement from the first gulf war.
But I didn't make that point either. Got any other arguments against points I didn't make?
"if you truly believe that any outside culture has the Ability to "force" U.S. into ANYTHING, then you need to seek psychiatric help for severe psychotic delusions"
I'd stack my marbles against yours any day.
In a sense, no outside culture has ever "forced" the US to fight any battle or war in history.
I'm not forced to eat when I'm hungry either. But it makes sense to do it from time to time for self-preservation.
martharay #91: "Dan,
Men do not wear burkhas in Iraq--nor, for that matter, do women."
Iraqi woman in burka
"And YOU, clearly, have never been to the the Middle East"
That's by choice. I'd rather the middle east didn't come here as well. But many of them seem to prefer our society to the ones they've fled.
"Western civilzation, indeed! The cradle of civilization (period) was destroyed by the barbarians of the US and UK military."
Last I heard it was still there. Floundering in corruption, tribalism, and barbarism.
They might've been the cradle of civilization, but the West is, as I said, the "pinnacle of societal evolution".
118 - gonzo marx
oh Dan..i want some of whatever you are on that helps make you so delusional...let's have a look at the Origin..i think much of the problem is in miscommunication, willing to give the benefit of the Doubt...
"Elements within their primitive society should not be allowed to enforce their enslavement on the rest of us."
your statement to me...this implies that somehow some Iraqi fringe threatens "the rest of us" with being able to somehow "enforce their enslavement"
how, exactly did you mean that?...it reads like you think that somehow some Iraqi's can enslave the US...to which i say bullshit....care to clarify?
"If they don't subscribe to the philosophy of 'live and let live', then yes, "kill em"."
so you espouse the theory that you should kill anybody that doesn't like you...even if they live in another country, far away and pose NO danger to you?....care to clarify?
"Why not you go over and offer yourself up. If you think that our "way of life" is inferior?"
the "offer yourself up" bit had appeared to be a challenge to join the military...which i had said i had done...could just be confusion there...
but please do cite where i have EVER fucking said ANYTHING about "inferior"...this is a symptom of your delusional projecting rather than reading and comprehending....as i said, seek help
"The Western culture that most of us think of as the pinnacle of advanced civilization is under assault."
now here we may have some agreement, and some disagreement...i think the most heinous assault on Western civilization is being carried out by W's administration and it's foreign policies...
1 - suspension of habeus corpus (Jose Padilla)
2 - warrantless wiretapping (over 200 cases of purely domestic done with no warrants as reported by the FBI)
3 - the insane agenda of a "unitary executive" (signing statements onward, executive privilege, holding the Administration above the law with no Constitutional checks and balances)
from what i infer, you appear to think that some criminals are a threat to the entirety of Civilization....i don't give them credit for anywhere near that much Power, ideologically nor physically
now, as for the Iraqis and the anti-aircraft bit..i agree, that was rude of them to shoot at planes flying over their country...it was indeed part of the cease fire treaty, and they should have been held accountable for it indeed...no argument there....
however, a pre-emptive invasion, poorly planned that years later has the country in civil war and MUCH worse off in every metric than they were before the invasion shows poor thinking, piss poor planning and even worse management
so, those who have accomplished that disaster don't get ANY benefit of the doubt when it comes
to assertions they make, based solely on their track record of staggering incompetence and waste of Blood and Treasure
as for the "pinnacle of civilization" claim...a case can indeed be made, however there are plenty of other civilizations who have just as solid a claim, it all depends on what you want form your civilization, doesn't it?
big difference between New York, Beijing, Tokyo, New Delhi, Amsterdam and Athens...plenty more, each their own civilization..and each with it's strengths and weaknesses
pure fucking Hubris to claim best or "finest"
Excelsior?
119 - Dan
"how, exactly did you mean that?...it reads like you think that somehow some Iraqi's can enslave the US...to which i say bullshit....care to clarify?"
Sure, the oft stated goal of Islamic jihaddists is to kill western "infidel's", destroy our way of life, and run things their way. I don't think they're kidding. At least they don't ever seem to smile when they say it. Come to think of it, they don't ever seem to smile at anything.
Didn't say they wanted to enslave just the US. I said us. By us I include all freedom loving democracies. Even the Iraqi's. It's a global thing.
"so you espouse the theory that you should kill anybody that doesn't like you...even if they live in another country, far away and pose NO danger to you?....care to clarify?"
Sure, the live and let live philosophy is actually the opposite of "kill anybody that doesn't like you". If jihaddists adhered to the "let live" part, there would be no need to kill them.
"but please do cite where i have EVER fucking said ANYTHING about "inferior"...this is a symptom of your delusional projecting rather than reading and comprehending....as i said, seek help"
Well, I don't think you have. I only posed the logical assertion that follows from what I percieve as you wanting to give up on Iraq.
That's where the focus of the global war of domination is. If one wants to give it up, then you hand the jihaddists a victory. If you want to hand them a victory, it could be because you are on their side.
Of course you might think that they pose no threat, or that they'll decide to call it off, but then that would be delusional.
I don't care to argue the points against Bush's managing things. I disagree heartily, but could probably concede a few points. Small potatoes (potatos?) though from my point of view.
"it all depends on what you want form your civilization, doesn't it?"
Yes. Being a civilization where hordes of folks are constantly trying to get in makes the case as well.
120 - gonzo marx
it appears the basic bone of contention is the view that somehow Iraq is a kind of "focal point" for all this
i disagree
the border area of Afghanistan/Pakistan where al Qaeda core resides, bin Laden and Mullah Omar are an exponentially greater real threat in all considerations that anything in Iraq
a true red herring indeed is the fiasco going on in Iraq...NO Iraqi attacked the U.S. or anywhere else since Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait ( we talked about the shooting at planes earlier, also the bombings that the U.S. did to Iraqi facilities during that time needs to be mentioned)
the only thin tie you can possibly put between Iraq and terrorism would have been Saddam's giving $25k to the families of bombers AFTER they had died...there's your "small potatoes"
Iraq is a distraction and a drain of resources that should be used against the REAL threat of criminal activity and terrorism....al Qaeda, and though they now have a "franchise" in Iraq (established long after the Invasion and not directly tied to bin Laden et al)the core, main training and planning facilities, leadership and financials as well as the spiritual and symbolic Leadership reside (Mullah Omar, the spiritual leader, more dangerous than bin Laden due to possession of the "Cloak of Mohammed", the Muslim equivalent to the "Spear of Longinus")
so, i do think many of your base assumptions are incorrect for a variety of reasons...you have completely fucked up any kind of assessment of my own thoughts as has been clearly shown
anything else?
for your perusal on the topic.... the Article covers some briefly, but the following comments add to the conversation
Excelsior?
121 - gonzo marx
my bad, i forgot to add a point that is crucial...
you also appear to be setting forward the idea that our entire civilization is in some kind of danger of being conquered by the bullshit jihadist criminals
i think you give them far too much credit...as i had stated earlier, MUCH worse of us all is if we are willing to give up the basic Freedoms we possess, or allow our Rights to be infringed all in the name of some completely false assurance of "security"
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
i'll gladly give my all, in both Blood and Treasure to preserve our Constitution and our Rights and our Nation...but NOTHING in Iraq threatens that at all, in my opinion...and many of the efforts of this misguided Administration and it's lackeys have done far more harm than could ever be possibly caused by that country's full concerted efforts
the REAL fight is on that border of Pakistan and Afghanistan
Excelsior?
122 - Dave Nalle
Gonzo, I think that here in our splending isolation in America we don't really grasp how much of a real cultural and numerical threat the muslim world is as far as taking over from the west.
We may have the money, but they have the will and the numbers, and if you live in Europe I'm willing to bet you have a hard time pretending that the muslims aren't out there waiting on the doorstep to come and assume ownership of the house we call civilization.
You can't deny that they have the desire to rule the world. You're scoffing at the idea that they have the means to do it. But there's more than one way to conquer the world than force of arms. Infiltration, economic influence, spreading chaos to do economic and political harm to your enemies, all of these things can be stepping stones to building an empire. Weaken the enemy enough and you don't have to be all that strong to take over when they collapse.
Dave
123 - gonzo marx
actually..i'm scoffing at the idea that the small fraction of extremists amongst the larger population are capable of doing more than blowing a few things up here and there
it's like trying to say that Catholics are trying to take over the world because some IRA folks blow shit up
i say that some are definitely fucked up folks, and need to be dealt with, but the entire "take over the world" bullshit is scare tactics from those who want the "glory days" of the Cold War back for their own purposes, and this is the convenient Foe/flavor of the month
i've read the PNAC agenda, remember? how they said "what we need is another Pearl Harbor"...so they could embark on their imperial agenda...i linked to it many times over the last few years for anyone to read
if the time has come where a few thousand criminals scattered around the world can be considered such a Threat then some serious examination of our Leadership is required
so yeah
i scoff at the idea that more than a few thousand crooks are trying to "rule the world"
i scoff at the idea that said crooks have the capability (look how well they have done with the countries that have controlled..Afghanistan was such a menace, wasn't it?)
i scoff at allowing "terror" to terrorize ANY free people
you can't enslave a free person, you can only kill them...
"the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself" - FDR
stand the fuck up and don't be a bitch, this does NOT mean invading other people's houses and fucking shit up randomly...if one stoops to the level of the Foe, then one is NO better than what is being fought
if one allows a punk to "terrorize", then one becomes a bitch...fuck that
the problem here is billions wasted barking up the wrong fucking tree, the crooks we should be going after ARE NOT IN FUCKING IRAQ...never have been
they are on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, headed by bin Laden....still, and Mullah Omar with the "Cloak of Mohammed"...until and unless that simple fact is recognized and dealt with, all else is a sheer fucking waste of our time, blood and treasure
so many have denied these simple facts and defended bullshit mistakes and distractions...to continue to do so when all the hard data and information clearly shows differently is dangerously delusional, or deliberately deceitful
Excelsior?
124 - Dave Nalle
actually..i'm scoffing at the idea that the small fraction of extremists amongst the larger population are capable of doing more than blowing a few things up here and there
It's not about blowing this up. That's just a means to an end. And the radicalized population we're talking about isn't as small as you think. It's probably in the neighborhood of 50 million people or so. Likely a lot more. And the leaders are not what we perceive of radical, and they have lots of others likek them who aren't blowing things up or shouting allahuakbar, but still believe in the same long-term political goals.
it's like trying to say that Catholics are trying to take over the world because some IRA folks blow shit up
Except that most Catholics didn't share the basic beliefs of the IRA while deploring their methods.
i say that some are definitely fucked up folks, and need to be dealt with, but the entire "take over the world" bullshit is scare tactics from those who want the "glory days" of the Cold War back for their own purposes, and this is the convenient Foe/flavor of the month
Then you are just sticking your head in the sand. This is nothing like the cold war. It's not a matter of two world powers jockeying to divide up an empire. It's about an absolute destiny decreed for the people of Islam by god himself, a belief shared by the radical and the moderate alike.
i've read the PNAC agenda, remember? how they said "what we need is another Pearl Harbor"...so they could embark on their imperial agenda...i linked to it many times over the last few years for anyone to read
PNAC is so beyond irrelevant that I can't even imagine what point there would be in discussing them. They're the little boy who picked up a rock to build his play fort and found a nest of fireants underneath it who killed him and stripped the meat from his bones. At that point what he was going to do with the rock doesn't really matter much anymore.
if the time has come where a few thousand criminals scattered around the world can be considered such a Threat then some serious examination of our Leadership is required
So long as you continue to cling to the fantasy that we're talking about a few thousand criminals you're never going to be able to come to terms with the reality here. You need to start from a basic grounding in reality before you can move on, and you're clearly not starting from that point.
I can't even respond to your self-satisfied listing of what you scoff at and your little aphorisms. You really have no idea.
stand the fuck up and don't be a bitch, this does NOT mean invading other people's houses and fucking shit up randomly...if one stoops to the level of the Foe, then one is NO better than what is being fought
I ageee. Invading Iraq was the wrong strategy to pursue. It was a policy born in ignorance and arrogance. The one good part is that it did help us focus and see the bigger picture.
if one allows a punk to "terrorize", then one becomes a bitch...fuck that
Again, the terrorism isn't the threat. It's just a means to an end.
the problem here is billions wasted barking up the wrong fucking tree, the crooks we should be going after ARE NOT IN FUCKING IRAQ...never have been
It's no longer about 'crooks' and it is no longer about going after one man. You're intent on fighting a war that's already over by rules which are no longer even meaningful.
Let me see if I can give you an analogy to start from. Imagine you are a British politician in 1880 looking at the disunited microstates of Germany - with no central government and no international empire. Would you laugh them off as irrelevant or would you be able to see WWII coming 50 years down the road?
Dave
125 - bliffle
Dan and Dave have to go to extraordinary lengths of paranoid fantasy to support their mad argument that the Iraq Invasion is justified. IMO.