Maybe You Have To Be Post-Soviet
That is, to understand how dangerous and awful the march toward socialism in this country really is. Svetlana Kunin now lives in Stamford, Connecticut, but she came from the Soviet Union. She writes in Investor's Business Daily about the harsh, hellish life (for anyone but the Party members) in her native land, and then this:
Those who left Russia found a different set of values in America: freedom of religion, speech, individual pursuits, the right to private property and free enterprise. The majority of those immigrants achieved a better life for themselves and their children in this capitalist land.These opportunities let the average immigrant live a better life than many elites in the Soviet Communist Party. The freedom to pursue personal self-interest led to prosperity. Prosperity generated charity, benefiting the collective good.
The descendants of those immigrants are now supporting policies that move America away from the values that gave so many immigrants the chance of a better life. Policies such as nationalized medicine, high tax rates and government intrusion into free enterprise are being sold to us under the socialistic motto of collective salvation.
Socialism has bankrupted and failed every society, while capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system.
There is no perfect society. There are no perfect people. Critics say that greed is the driving force of capitalism. My answer is that envy is the driving force of socialism. Change to socialism is not an improvement on the imperfections of the current system.
The slogans of "fairness and equality" sound better than the slogans of capitalism. But unlike at the beginning of the 20th century, when these slogans and ideas were yet to be tested, we have accumulated history and reality.
Today we can define the better system not by slogans, but by looking at the accumulated facts. We can compare which ideology leads to the most oppression and which brings the most opportunity.
When I came to America in 1980 and experienced life in this country, I thought it was fortunate that those living in the USSR did not know how unfortunate they were.
Now in 2009, I realize how unfortunate it is that many Americans do not understand how fortunate they are. They vote to give government more and more power without understanding the consequences.
My grandparents said practically the same thing 50 years ago, even Goldblum's character on that cop show said " They are trying to replace an imperfect system with a failed one". Willful ignorance is evil.
mbruce at August 21, 2009 6:40 AM
"They are trying to replace an imperfect system with a failed one."
Perfectly said.
Amy Alkon at August 21, 2009 7:20 AM
"Oh, but you see, they didn't do Socialism quite right in Russia, but done properly, it could be heaven on earth!" -- Increasingly I've varying forms of this talking point from members of the Left in America & Canada. And each time I am left bewildered about how so-called educated people can be so incredibly stupid!
These days I am hosting a 28 year old woman from the Czech Republic. She has told me how, after 1968 her parents actively campaigned for democracy in their country.
She, who has lived under the thumb of a totalitarian regime, much better understands what it's all about than the endless goofballs who wear Che Guevara or CCCP t-shirts and think themselves cool.
Robert W. (Vancouver) at August 21, 2009 8:06 AM
> Willful ignorance is evil.
Doesn't go far enough... Un-willful ignorance is evil, too.
Maybe it's because we're genetically programmed to be nice to children, but no matter what they tell you, naïveté is not pretty, and quite often evil.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at August 21, 2009 8:09 AM
Robert -
That's because a lot of them are Maoists. They believe in the perfectibility of man.
Which is probably the greatest lie in all of political science.
brian at August 21, 2009 9:19 AM
I know this isn't the popular opinion around these parts, but to compare what the Obama administration is doing to the Soviet Union is laughable. No one's talking about 5-year plans, Michelle Bachmann and Glenn Beck are not headed for the Siberian Gulag for spouting their anti-government nuttiness, and we haven't annexed Mexico and Canada. We could do with a little more government intervention in the economy, health care, and the environment.
The uber-capitalists on Wall Street broke the economy with their magical CDO math that turned shitty loans into high grade bonds they could foist off on institutional investors. They knew what they were doing was fraud. And then they were bailed out by the Treasury secretary who succeeding in creating a situation where his former company made even more money than before (SRSLY, how in the hell is Goldman making so much money in this economy?), while ensuring the destruction of their chief rival. No conflict there. He was just looking out for the American people. Right. The same people who destroyed our economy are being bailed out by people who will never earn in a lifetime what these criminals make in one good bonus. That we haven't lynched a few bankers is testimony to the basic decency of the American people.
The Bush administration - capitalists to the core - set us on the road to bankruptcy with huge tax cuts, mostly for those making tons of money, unending wars in countries we have no business occupying and unfunded expansions of entitlements.
The absence of decent government regulation that has been the hallmark of the U.S. government's policies since the Reagan era has succeeded in creating a new gilded age, where the top earners have grabbed an ever larger slice of the pie while those in the middle and below have stagnated.
And now people like this woman compare moderate reforms suggested by the Obama administration in things like health care - that don't come close to offering the sort of universal coverage enjoyed by people in most of the other developed nations of the world (and even some of the less-developed nations) - to life in Soviet Fucking Russia.
Get a fucking grip.
Whatever at August 21, 2009 9:24 AM
> And now people like this woman compare
> moderate reforms suggested by the Obama
> administration
Ever'buddy saw that, right?
Just wanted to be sure.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at August 21, 2009 9:30 AM
Re: get a grip
Can we keep it? I think it's a pure culture!
--
phunctor
phunctor at August 21, 2009 9:30 AM
One possible correction for pedantic use of facts....
"Socialism has bankrupted and failed every society" should be amended to:
"Socialism has bankrupted and failed every society that had it long enough"
... there are plenty of people who will point to what they consider still-functioning countries that are well down that slippery slope.
Darius at August 21, 2009 9:50 AM
How much harm does the government have to inflict before it's OK to stop?
We can survive a little more government intervention, but I don't want us to merely survive, I want us to prosper. Americans do a great deal of good in the world, and reducing that by increasing government intervention in the economy, health care or the environment is not desirable.
Look at your own example:
That's what happens when government intervenes. That's not what we want more of.
Pseudonym at August 21, 2009 10:16 AM
Darius, I'd argue that that depends on the definition of the word "functioning". Although I've been rather shocked that Sweden, of all places, is pissing off the EU because it has instituted big tax cuts to bring in business.
As for this: "The uber-capitalists on Wall Street broke the economy with their magical CDO math that turned shitty loans into high grade bonds they could foist off on institutional investors. " Go and Google "Fannie Mae" and "Freddy Mac", and get back to us on that.
Cousin Dave at August 21, 2009 10:23 AM
Whatever -
Pretty much everything in your post is not just wrong, but a progressive talking-point lie.
How does it feel to be a useful idiot? I never got the chance to ask one before.
brian at August 21, 2009 10:25 AM
Ever'buddy saw that, right?
Your point being that I was engaging in some rhetorical slipperiness? Certainly the point of this woman's piece, and of Amy's posting it here, is that the policies of the Obama government are putting us on the path to some socialist hell. Am I wrong?
That's what happens when government intervenes. That's not what we want more of.
No, that's what happens when put the fox in charge of the henhouse.
What we want more of is good regulations industries that discourage fraud and punish the fraudsters. In the case of the investment banking industry, a good one would be to sever the cozy relationship between the ratings agencies and the investment banks. Right now, the ratings agencies have every incentive to give the investment banks the ratings they want, or risk losing future business.
How does it feel to be a useful idiot? I never got the chance to ask one before.
I dunno. How does it feel to be total douche?
Where did I lie?
Whatever at August 21, 2009 10:42 AM
Go and Google "Fannie Mae" and "Freddy Mac", and get back to us on that.
Thanks! Just did :)
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/fannie_mae_and.html
Next!
Whatever at August 21, 2009 10:50 AM
Whatever:
You'd have to tell me. I wouldn't know.
How about everywhere. Uh.. GM takeover? Ok, so it isn't a 5-year plan for production of wheat. It's still top-down centralized planning. Have you seen the number of pages in the Code of Federal Regulations (and that's just laws, not the regulations that all the various bureaus create.) Well, it could be ignorance, but I'm going with intentional lie.The repackaging was developed by some PhD pinhead. It was implemented by Sallie and Freddie, which were government-backed, and now government owned.
Talking points, all wrong. The Bush administration was nearly as liberal as Obama. Certainly more liberal than Clinton. Capitalism was not on his mind. Oh, and the tax cuts weren't huge enough, and they weren't slanted towards the "rich" you so revile. They in fact pulled millions of people at the low end of the income scale off the income tax rolls altogether. The fact that you spit back the standard Michael Moore bullshit about wars disqualifies you from talking about foreign policy, because you clearly haven't met a clue. And the Democrats biggest complaint about Medicare Part D? It wasn't big enough A lie. Income for the lower and middle classes increased more as a percentage of total earnings than for the highest earners. Tax revenues increased throughout the Reagan administration because lower taxes spurred increased productivity. MODERATE REFORMS? What the holy fuck are you smoking? He's talking about a government takeover of one seventh of the economy. He's talking about a system that has as one of its core intentions the denial of treatment based upon actuarial tables. He's talking about a system that WILL kill people, just like the universal coverage systems in place in "most of the other developed nations of the world" do now. Have you read any of HR3200? If not, then STFU. Go back to drinking the kool-aid. I've got a kung-fu grip, motherfucker. You, on the other hand, have shit.They were encouraged to do so by Barney Frank and the rest of the leftist clowns in Congress. In fact, they were required to do so by the CDA and various other pieces of legislation and regulation that required banks to loan money to people regardless of qualification.
Eat it.
brian at August 21, 2009 11:01 AM
> Am I wrong?
Yes.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at August 21, 2009 11:37 AM
Brian, you are total fuckwit.
The government owns a huge stake in GM, but isn't telling it how to run its business. That was a key part of the deal.
Obama is not talking about taking over health care. They have admitted they'd accept a bill even without a "public option" which itself wouldn't be a takeover, merely another choice that people would have for insurance.
All of the big investment banks, were hugely into repackaging bad loans. Note my link above - most of the worst loans were things Fanny and Freddy wouldn't touch. People who blame the CRA are also wrong. Loans under that program do not have a particularly high rate of default.
Top CDO issuers in 2007:
1 Merrill Lynch $32.176 17.2
2 Citi 26.578 14.2
3 UBS 21.151 11.3
4 Wachovia 12.505 6.7
5 ABN AMRO 10.849 5.8
6 Goldman Sachs 10.075 5.4
7 Banc of America 8.634 4.6
8 Deutsche Bank 8.231 4.4
9 RBS 7.154 3.8
10 Lehman Brothers 6.575 3.5
11 Morgan Stanley 6.277 3.3
Where's Fannie and Freddy?
This is totally hilarious: "Oh, and the tax cuts weren't huge enough"
Only if you're someone like that total cocksucker Grover Norquist
How long do you think the Chinese are going to pay for our wars? We actually need revenue to keep troops in all of these worthless countries.
Whatever at August 21, 2009 11:43 AM
Yes.
How so? Why else would that piece be relevant here?
Whatever at August 21, 2009 11:46 AM
I mean, direct from the blogger's mouth:
I'd say I'm not wrong.
Whatever at August 21, 2009 11:49 AM
Immediately after Obama said he had no interest in running GM, the administration demanded the resignation of Wagoner. If that's not telling it how to run its business, I don't know what it is.
You are a complete and utter shill.
No, he's said he's willing to wait 10-15 years. He just wants to make sure that the mechanism to cause the failure of the private system is in place before the end of his first term. Oh, and the progressive faction of the House has said that the "public option" (really the "government option") is non-negotiable. It's Pelosi's way or the highway. Which, I believe, she told Mr. Obama upon the occasion of his election.
Fannie and Freddie don't originate loans, your troglodyte. They purchase the loans from the other banks, which then (theoretically) frees up capital for those banks to originate more loans. Fannie and Freddie then slice these things up into "tranches" which get bundled into MBSs. Then companies like Goldman sell CDOs that are backed by the MBSs, and AIG sells CDSs which are meant to insure the MBSs.
And when the mortgages that F&F used as the underlying asset for the MBSs start to default at a level that the government mandated and regulated bureaus didn't anticipate, the value of the entire asset class plummets.
And the whole fucking thing SHOULD have landed in Barney Frank's lap. How it missed something that fucking wide is beyond me. But that motherfucker stood up and demanded that Bush and McCain stop talking about how Fannie and Freddie were engaging in unsound practices in 2005 because it would "endanger our mission of affordable housing".
You should pay more attention. There's gonna be a quiz later.
brian at August 21, 2009 11:57 AM
The CDOs were created because government regulations required banks to make loans to people who either did not have the ability to pay off the loan or the intention (sometimes both).
The banks had to get rid of those loans before they went toxic. Fannie and Freddie couldn't absorb them fast enough. So, Wall Street figured out a way to make money on them. That's what Wall Street does.
The "uber-capitalists on Wall Street" you deride so casually exist to create sell-able financial entities that create liquidity in the economy.
They don't examine the morality of something beyond what the SEC requires (no outright fraud and no insider trading). If people started screwing yaks in the street, those "uber-capitalists on Wall Street" would sell shares in yak farms.
Despite this, Wall Street is not inherently evil. In fact, at its core, it's a good thing. The economy is not run by some faceless bureaucracy in Washington, but by the participation of millions of investors, entrepreneurs, and ordinary citizens.
Conan the Grammarian at August 21, 2009 12:03 PM
Now now Brian, you're just a hater. If you criticize Mr. Frank you're just afraid of his sexuality.
Ignore the man behind the curtain! Ignore the video clips of Frank calling any hint of impropriety by Fanny/Freddie and the loan industry nothing but anti-minorities/poor from getting housing. One of the few good things I've seen out of Bill O'reily has been his take down of Frank last year.
To say the housing market is owned by any one side implictly is utter stupidity. The banks are a major part but so is ALL OF CONGRESS/GOVERNMENT. The more Frank et. al. spin it the more guilty they look. Oh, but thats only true when its Republicans doing it right? Stop and smell what you're shovelin.
Sio at August 21, 2009 12:17 PM
The CDOs were created because government regulations required banks to make loans to people who either did not have the ability to pay off the loan or the intention (sometimes both).
This is simply NOT TRUE.
CRA LOANS DO NOT DEFAULT AT ESPECIALLY HIGH RATES.
Further, since you people seem to challenged at reading what I posted above.
Whatever at August 21, 2009 12:21 PM
It wasn't the CRA, or Barney Frank that broke the economy. It was the big investment banks and financial products people at places like AIG. And here is why:
The ability to earn substantial fees from originating and securitizing loans, coupled with the absence of any residual liability, skews the incentives of originators in favor of loan volume rather than loan quality. This is a structural flaw in the debt-securitization market that greatly contributed to both the credit bubble of the 00's as well as the credit crisis, and the concomitant banking crisis, of 2008.
See Wikipedia's article on CDOs
Whatever at August 21, 2009 12:31 PM
Whatever, I see that you, unlike most people here, have all day to spam Internet forums with Democratic talking points. I hope David Axelrod is paying you well.
Seriously, you quote some unknown writer from the White House-friendly Business Week as an economic expert? Let me explain a few things. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't issue any sub-prime loans because they didn't issue any loans. They are not loan orginiators. Their role is the backing, re-purchasing, and consolidating of mortgages. They use their economic leverage to lean on banks to issue the types of loans favored by the Democrat big-wigs who protect them. In that role, they were the #1 issuer of the derivative mortgage-backed securities that caused so many investors to crash and burn.
Cousin Dave at August 21, 2009 12:48 PM
Eh, it's Friday, and I'm having a little fun tweaking you guys. I work more or less 7 days a week, so as the name says, whatever.
I understand that Fanny and Freddie don't issue loans. They buy loans and then resell them so that banks have liquidity. But as the quote above indicates, they didn't buy the shitty subprime loans that started this mess. As the biggest buyers of loans, of course their CDOs are problematic as well, because of the way that CDOs spread uncertainty rather than truly diversify risk. Once some of them start going bad, it becomes incredibly difficult to value any of them.
Whatever at August 21, 2009 12:57 PM
According to this (found in the comments section of that site you posted - the one that we people seem to be challenged at reading), Fannie and Freddie had a pretty good exposure in sub-prime loans.
And their accounting practices were pretty dodgy, too.
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20080930_Binder1.pdf
Conan the Grammarian at August 21, 2009 1:41 PM
Here's the summation if you're challenged at reading all 10 pages:
Although a large share of the subprime loans now causing a crisis in the international financial markets are so-called private label securities—issued by banks and securitizers other than Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — the two GSEs became the biggest buyers of the AAA tranches of these subprime pools in 2005–07.
Without their commitment to purchase the AAA tranches of these securitizations, it is unlikely that the pools could have been formed and marketed around the world.
Accordingly, not only did the GSEs destroy their own financial condition with their excessive purchases of subprime loans in the three-year period from 2005 to 2007, but they also played a major role in weakening or destroying the solvency and stability of other financial institutions and investors in the United States and abroad.
Conan the Grammarian at August 21, 2009 1:45 PM
He's made up his mind, Conan. Don't confuse him with facts.
brian at August 21, 2009 1:52 PM
Shocking, a right wing think tank blames Fannie and Freddy! Who else, the Hoover Institute? Next you'll try to discredit climate change by citing evidence from CEI.
Whatever at August 21, 2009 2:23 PM
> How so?
Here:
> moderate reforms suggested by the Obama
Lunacy. Insanity. Pathos, if it weren't so tragic.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at August 21, 2009 2:50 PM
> moderate reforms suggested by the Obama
Yes, moderate reforms. It's not like anyone is proposing to do away with private insurance and go single payer.
Whatever at August 21, 2009 3:28 PM
When you say something so foolish, we're left to imagine exactly how much authority you want to have over the well-being of others: What would constitude substantial or profound "reforms"?
And then we find out.
You're a storm trooper, you're not a nice guy, and your underwear is showing.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at August 21, 2009 3:38 PM
What would constitude substantial or profound "reforms"?
I don't advocate this. But profound reforms, of the sort the serious lefties want would look like this:
Elimination of private insurance, moving to a system similar to the NHS in the UK. Automatic coverage for all citizens regardless of their employment status, paid entirely out of tax receipts with no direct costs charged to the consumer for any services.
I'm not a fan of this, and it would never fly in the U.S. The proposed system, with a cheap, mediocre public HMO-like system, that anyone can buy into regardless of preexisting conditions, coupled with a preserved private system that lets those with the extra money buy premium services sounds like a compromise Americans can live with. And if the government is as inept at health care as all of you people expect them to be, well, lots of people will want to pay the extra money to stay on private insurance.
You're a storm trooper, you're not a nice guy, and your underwear is showing.
I suppose there's something clever I'm supposed to take from that. That I'm a Nazi? Or that I wear a white helmet and have trouble aiming my blaster accurately at the Han and the other rebel forces? While my pants sag?
Whatever at August 21, 2009 4:13 PM
> I suppose there's something clever
> I'm supposed to take from that.
Nope, these are straightforward times. Go look the current news headline: We'll remember this as Obama's "Nine-trillion-dollar weekend".
You are so certain that if people would just put you in charge of their lives, you could make this planet really rock and roll... You mean well! No, really! It's for our own good!
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at August 21, 2009 4:17 PM
What headline?
CNN.com News headline: Blogger reveals secret identity, gets fired
NYT: World’s Central Bankers Voice Optimism for a Recovery
You are so certain that if people would just put you in charge of their lives, you could make this planet really rock and roll.
What makes you think I want to be in charge of others' lives?
I'm still trying to figure out what makes me a storm trooper, with my pants down. I couldn't care less whether you think I'm a nice guy.
Whatever at August 21, 2009 4:41 PM
> What headline?
As mentioned, the $9 trillion one. You couldn't see it, and I find that telling.
> a compromise Americans can live with.
And yet it turns out that many Americans cant live with it doesn't it?
> What makes you think I want to be in
> charge of others' lives?
Your eagerness to tell them to pay for each other's care.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at August 21, 2009 4:48 PM
And yet it turns out that many Americans cant live with it doesn't it?
Not everyone get to be happy with every government policy.
I had to take it when that shithead Bush took us to war in Iraq for no good reason. You might have to take it that health care policies are enacted that you don't like. In both cases, one of us pays for things he'd rather not have his tax money support.
Whatever at August 21, 2009 5:04 PM
Whatever:
See, this is how we know you're uninformed. You only get your news from CNN and the New York times.
If you'd been reading Hot Air, Instapundit, or any of a number of alternative news sources you'd have seen all the video clips and read all the stories about how Obama has supported a stealth single-payer system, the progressive caucus intends the public option to be the method by which they get rid of private insurance. Hillarycare was all about doing away with private care entirely - and that revelation is what killed it.
Which is why Obama and his minions are lying their asses off about the ultimate plans for single payer in the US.
You're right about that much - the American people will never tolerate it. Which is why the subterfuge.
brian at August 21, 2009 6:22 PM
That's right. Don't bother reading the argument and disputing it. Just dismiss it because you don't agree with the authors' politics.
And this think tank article even agrees with some points of your argument, but you wouldn't know that because you didn't bother to read it. Were you too challenged to read it?
Conan the Grammarian at August 21, 2009 7:02 PM
No, he understands that the left-wing media only produces propaganda, so he assumes that the right-wing media must do the same.
Projection ain't a river in Egypt, but it's the left's stock in trade.
brian at August 21, 2009 9:03 PM
> I had to take it when that shithead
> Bush took us to war in Iraq for no
> good reason
Tit for tat isn't the game on this planet. You might not have liked this war, but it was undertaken on behalf of all Americans. What you call health care "reform" is, as you're eager to concede, being "offered" to benefit a subset of Americans whose neediness is indeterminate, and whose genius at selecting care will be smothered in the crib: 'Let's take other people's resources and do it anyway', says you. ("[S]ounds like a compromise Americans can live with": Interesting wording to represent the interpretation of an Administration that doesn't really want to ask them.)
I have problems with that. I think this is mostly about your need to be self-righteous.
To say nothing about being manipulative of those around you: I also have problems with the idea that government wants to manage the intensely personal and instructive mission that is caring for one's own body... Perhaps the quintessence of responsible humanity. (And the source of much industry... Knowing one needs to prepare* for bad times focuses attention at the start of a workday.)
_________________
* Brian excepted: "Not gonna happen", he asserts.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at August 21, 2009 9:14 PM
In the words of Connor MacLeod: "I am immortal."
brian at August 21, 2009 9:37 PM
Merely interminable: Not the same thing.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at August 21, 2009 10:06 PM
Were you too challenged to read it?
No, too busy. Making a quick comment during the workday is easy; reading papers takes time.
No, he understands that the left-wing media only produces propaganda, so he assumes that the right-wing media must do the same.
I understand that advocacy groups of all sorts generally produce papers whose conclusions generally support their predispositions.
If you'd been reading Hot Air, Instapundit, or any of a number of alternative news sources you'd have seen all the video clips and read all the stories about how Obama has supported a stealth single-payer system,
I don't read those douchebags (don't read Kos, or most of the lefty blogs either). I like Kaus, the New Republic, TPM, the Atlantic, TAC, and some others. You mean that video from 2003? I saw that one. I assume he's changed his mind since then. I know what Obama ran on, and what is currently being contemplated, and what might pass the Senate will not be anything like single-payer. It's why a lot of his support on the left is diminishing.
Tit for tat isn't the game on this planet. You might not have liked this war, but it was undertaken on behalf of all Americans.
For the life of me, I've never actually been able to figure out whom that war was intended to benefit. The only unambiguous beneficiaries are the Kurds as far as a I can tell. And they just aren't worth the trillion dollars and thousands of American casualties. Fuck that whole godforsaken place.
But that wasn't the point.
The point was that elected people do things that some of their constituents don't like. Suck it up. It's what people like me had to do while Bush got his huge tax cuts, passed environmentally devastating legislation, spied on Americans, tortured people, violated treaties, and more.
Like it or not, we elected a president who believes that the government needs to take more responsibility for health care, and is pushing for legislation to do that. He's pushing the platform he ran on. It's not like there's some bait and switch here.
Whatever at August 21, 2009 10:33 PM
> It's not like there's some bait
> and switch here.
No? Good! I'm really, really, looking forward to my tax cut.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at August 21, 2009 10:47 PM
No? Good! I'm really, really, looking forward to my tax cut.
Awesome, keep it up!
Whatever at August 21, 2009 11:02 PM
> Fuck that whole godforsaken place.
Someone should write that down: The first- or second-best pool of oil in the world (servicing, notably, Europe). "Fuck" it. Very good then.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at August 21, 2009 11:17 PM
Yet you managed to slip in a quick snide quip about the article - which you hadn't yet bothered to read. How am I to trust your opinion on anything else?
Conan the Grammarian at August 21, 2009 11:31 PM
Very good then.
Please do write it down. Fuck that whole godforsaken place.
We spent, so far a trillion dollars there. We've been there for longer than it took to defeat two industrial powerhouses in World War II. It's not worth it. They don't want us, they don't want to fix things, and they have shown no aptitude for Western-style Democracy. We know oil is running out, sooner or later. It's a finite resource. Instead recognizing we need to develop alternatives, invest in other forms of energy we doubled or tripled down on a technology that trashes the environment while enriching our enemies!
Whatever at August 21, 2009 11:35 PM
Until it became unpopular enough to become a political football, "that war" was a bipartisan effort launched to benefit all of us on behalf of the 3,000 American (and other nationalities) who died in the World Trade Center Bombing, the Pentagon bombing, and the attempted White House bombing.
Conan the Grammarian at August 21, 2009 11:40 PM
Until it became unpopular enough to become a political football, "that war" was a bipartisan effort launched to benefit all of us on behalf of the 3,000 American (and other nationalities) who died in the World Trade Center Bombing, the Pentagon bombing, and the attempted White House bombing.
By attacking people who had nothing to do with those attacks? While the people who did perpetrate the attacks were still alive? How's that work? Iraq was essentially impotent, it's military decimated, and Saddam and the jihadis weren't exactly buds. The jihadis who attacked us were from, if memory serves, Egypt, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia. Yet we give big support to two of those governments and do nothing with the other.
Whatever at August 21, 2009 11:49 PM
Why don't you ask Hillary? Or John Kerry? Or Ted Kennedy? They all voted in favor of the war. And they all had access to more inside information the I did (or do now).
Conan the Grammarian at August 21, 2009 11:53 PM
> We know oil is running out,
> sooner or later.
We know no such thing. We never run out of anything. Prices get higher, people get better at delivering the goods, and then things get replaced. Piano keys are more plentiful than ever before, even though ivory is rarer. No whale oil for lamps, yet I type for you at midnight.
You're talking like a child: Life is tough, so you wanna take your ball and bat and go home. As if you had that choice, like the Hollywood starlet in a snit on the way to her trailer: "I simply cannot work with that man!" As if the rest of the world, including the Nasty Guys, didn't have an interest in seeing the oil continue to be sold by a crime family.
> Yet we give big support to two
> of those governments and do
> nothing with the other.
I believe that when the Saudis (and other players) lost their were-better-than-THAT-guy buffer state (i.e. Saddam), they were brought to think more clearly about their relationship to the non-Arab fundamentalists in the area... Iran. I like that.
Conan: Don't forget Biden, the Vice President of the United States... He voted for it, too.
Fuckin' lefties, man.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at August 22, 2009 12:05 AM
Yeah, that $25,000 prize Saddam promised the families of suicide bombers had nothing to do with the increased popularity of suicide bombing throughout the Middle East.
Conan the Grammarian at August 22, 2009 12:06 AM
No whale oil for lamps, yet I type for you at midnight.
We damn near exterminated species in the proces. You're making my point. Old technologies get replaced. We need to get on with the replacing when it comes to our petroleum-based economy.
You're talking like a child: Life is tough, so you wanna take your ball and bat and go home.
No, my analysis of the Iraq quagmire (and Afghanistan, too) is more mature than that; our sunk costs are so high that we can't muster the will to do what we should and come the fuck home on the off chance that we'll miraculously reform fucked regions of the world.
Why don't you ask Hillary? Or John Kerry? Or Ted Kennedy? They all voted in favor of the war. And they all had access to more inside information the I did (or do now).
They're cowards. I'm a fan of none of them.
Yeah, that $25,000 prize Saddam promised the families of suicide bombers had nothing to do with the increased popularity of suicide bombing throughout the Middle East.
There was plenty of enthusiasm before. That was more provocation than anything that affected things at a meaningful strategic level.
Whatever at August 22, 2009 12:21 AM
I'm concerned when any extremist group gets an outsized portion of control of the government.
But the religious right, for all its proclamations, never gained absolute control over both the executive and legislative branches of the government.
With its 60-vote majority in the Senate, if not for the Blue Dogs, the left wing of the Democratic party is on the verge of doing just that.
Conan the Grammarian at August 22, 2009 12:31 AM
There was plenty of enthusiasm before. That was more provocation than anything that affected things at a meaningful strategic level.
Oh yeah. 'cause no one in the Middle East said "I need the money and I've got three sons so I can spare one or two."
Conan the Grammarian at August 22, 2009 12:33 AM
> We need to get on with the replacing
Oh, fucks' sake... YOU FIRST, buttercup. Give up your oil... And all the transit and goods and communications and manufacturing that it brings to your life. Start today, Saturday.
All these mechanisms are economic. There's zero, zero doubt in my mind that you have no concern with replacing oil, which will happen on its own as necessary. YOU JUST WANT CONTROL OF THE ECONOMIC LEVERS.
Because you're such a nice guy.
And you want to do good things for people.
By telling them how to live.
> I'm a fan of none of them.
Which did you vote for? Tell the truth.
> my analysis of the Iraq quagmire
> (and Afghanistan, too) is more
> mature than that
Or are you old enough to vote?
"Fucked regions of the world."
Another one!
"Fucked regions of the world."
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at August 22, 2009 12:48 AM
Oh yeah. 'cause no one in the Middle East said "I need the money and I've got three sons so I can spare one or two."
That's not the question. It's how many did this? How many payments did he send? Did he meaningfully impact the number of suicide bombings?
There's zero, zero doubt in my mind that you have no concern with replacing oil, which will happen on its own as necessary. YOU JUST WANT CONTROL OF THE ECONOMIC LEVERS.
Not soon enough to avoid what look to be serious climate change issues. I'm doing my part to minimize my oil use. Cut the car entirely out of my commute.
Which did you vote for? Tell the truth
Voted Kerry for president in 2004. I've never voted for any other person who voted for the resolution.
Or are you old enough to vote?
Just doubled that age, actually.
"Fucked regions of the world."
Exactly! Fucked. Now you're getting it! It's a waste of our time, money, and soldiers lives to try to fix these places. We should just hang back and bomb as needed.
Whatever at August 22, 2009 1:16 AM
Your analysis is non-existent. This is what amateur analysis looks like, grasshopper.
I wrote that in 2004. I could go back and improve it with what I know now. The conclusions would still be the same.
Oil or no, Islam remains a threat to stability and peace worldwide. The way to take away its power is not to stop using oil, but to strip it of its veneer of invincibility. In other words, we do to Islamism what we did to Communism - we invalidate it as a theory of governance.
Obama seeks to undermine all of the work we've done and make all of those American and Iraqi deaths meaningless because he's a pussy. Obama wants to hide from the big, bad world because it has never once occurred to him that there are truly evil people out there.
There is no such thing as anthropogenic climate change. Michael Mann's "hockey stick" upon which all of Algore's whining is predicated was a fraud. Fake. Counterfeit.
Hadley's numbers for GISS are obsequious at best because although he's using our dollars to develop his algorithms, he won't share them with us. And GISS refuses to answer questions about the siting of temperature probes. Go visit wattsupwiththat. com (left the space so the spamfilter doesn't eat my post) and educate yourself.
Wow. A liberal who's on the "nuke them all then shoot them in the dark" bandwagon. This oughtta kill you real good then - that's exactly what I was advocating on 9/12 when all I felt were hate and rage.
Of course on reflection while that might solve some geo-political problems, the fallout (nuclear and otherwise) would take decades, if not centuries to clean up.
No, you're just going to have to admit that Bush got one right, but had to fight not only our enemies abroad, but our own fifth-column of hate-America-firsters and a political left that sought power regardless of who had to die for them to get it.
And if you think I'm making that last line up, ask Cindy Sheehan how the anti-war movement (what anti-war movement?) feels about her now.
brian at August 22, 2009 4:13 AM
In other words, we do to Islamism what we did to Communism - we invalidate it as a theory of governance.
Your analysis is interesting, and would have been far more defensible than the laughable ones offered by Bush. If only Saddam's regime were one of the ones the Islamists claimed as their own. Regardless, real reform is impossible when the people who live there want to settle old score and kill each other.
Wow. A liberal who's on the "nuke them all then shoot them in the dark" bandwagon. This oughtta kill you real good then - that's exactly what I was advocating on 9/12 when all I felt were hate and rage.
I'd more suggest we use conventional bombs, drones, helicopters and A-10s. But otherwise, yes, I think that's the right approach. Make it completely clear to the terrorists and those governments who support them that we reserve the right to strike anywhere we get information about them operating. But never get into the business of occupying and rebuilding. Fuck em.
whatever at August 22, 2009 10:10 AM
The unfortunate side effect of that is you end up with more failed states for the terrorists to take over.
This is known as a Bad Thing. That's the one thing we learned after the Treaty of Versailles.
You destroy the bad regime, and create something in its place that will (hopefully) prevent a recurrence.
So far Japan, Germany and South Korea haven't given anybody any shit.
The only other option, I'm afraid, is complete annihilation. And wiping out somewhere between 16 and 33 per cent of the human population of the planet is not really the best thing we could do with our time. Although the folks what wrote Agenda 21 (that would be the UN) might think it a good start.
brian at August 22, 2009 10:25 AM
> what look to be serious climate
> change issues.
The world is crawling with "serious issues". We'll call you if we need you.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at August 22, 2009 11:06 AM
> Cut the car entirely out
> of my commute.
Me? I enjoy driving. Don't tell the BHPD, OK?, but this, in the westbound direction, is probably the finest urban curve in north America... It's highly reminiscent of Eau Rouge. I've tried it in a great variety of traffic conditions in several cars, including my current little supercharged number, And never gotten above 62mph at the apex... But I'm going to keep trying.
> Voted Kerry for president in 2004.
> I've never voted for any other
> person who voted for the
> resolution.
That's fine: Once is enough to demonstrate that this isn't a meaningful principle to you or anything.
> Just doubled that age, actually
Old enough to know better.
> Exactly! Fucked. Now you're
> getting it!
There are a couple of generations who think that if their sarcasm is sufficiently tart, it's the same as thoughtfully contrary. This is not so.
> We should just hang back and
> bomb as needed.
So it's not about decency, or courage or anything else that could be admired. You just want to move through life, and through history, being afraid. Isn't this how racism starts? First, you devalue the lives of others...
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at August 22, 2009 11:06 AM
Fuckit, going for broke on the links. See this and this for more about preciously walking to work.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at August 22, 2009 11:07 AM
Hey, can I get a little green props here? I walk to work every morning. From my bedroom to my office 10 feet away.
Sometimes I feed the dog first.
brian at August 22, 2009 11:22 AM
Aw shucks... I said westbound but meant eastbound. Like this. Yeah, daddy! With all five lanes you could probably do 90.
Recently I scooted through there so clean and sporty that Michael Jackson, asleep in the house on the left, died... He was that impressed with my technique. I've felt a sad twinge every time since.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at August 22, 2009 11:28 AM
You just suggested short-range weapons. So, in what country or countries do we put the airbase and support facilities?
'cause that worked so well in North Vietnam.
Bombing a people from afar only serves to rile them up and instill hatred against you. And it does precious little to take away their ability to strike back.
Clinton's cruise missile attacks against terrorist training bases in Afghanistan certainly worked in preventing another al Qaeda attack.
Conan the Grammarian at August 22, 2009 12:00 PM
That's fine: Once is enough to demonstrate that this isn't a meaningful principle to you or anything.
It's not principles, it's pragmatics. Anyone who claims the level of all-knowing maturity you do should understand that we don't get he opportunity to vote for the lily white. Voting for Bush was voting to prolong these conflicts; had Kerry won, there was at least a chance we would have done the sensible thing and left. Voting for anyone else in a very close election would simply be a waste.
Me? I enjoy driving.
Yeah, it's fun hauling ass. Sitting in traffic, not so much. Hence why commuting by foot and rail is much better. I'm either enjoying a walk, getting work done or reading something interesting. My car stays parked nearly every day. Hell, we might even be so unpatriotic as to go down to a single vehicle.
So it's not about decency, or courage or anything else that could be admired.
It's about the recognition that it's not our job to fix others' societies. That we get mixed up in cultures we don't understand at our peril. It's our job to take good care of our own, and let others do the same. The paleocons are right about this.
Civil unrest in Mexico = our business, cause they're on our borders. What the Russians do to Georgia = not our business. Same with Kosovo. Same with Darfur. Same with the Iranian elections. With Iraq and Afghanistan, we have unfortunately made two of the world's longest-running sources of strife our business. Nothing could have been dumber.
'cause that worked so well in North Vietnam.
Vietnam could have been ignored entirely, and without significant consequences to us. It was stupid to be involved there in the first place, and even dumber to escalate it into a large scale war.
Clinton's cruise missile attacks against terrorist training bases in Afghanistan certainly worked in preventing another al Qaeda attack
Not cruise missile attacks. Utter devastation. We get intelligence of a training camp, turn a few square miles into a smoldering crater. We find out that the Taliban protected Bin Laden, Kandahar becomes Dresden. The Powell doctrine, but more so.
Whatever at August 22, 2009 3:16 PM
That's what Clinton did. It didn't stop al Qaeda.
So we casually slaughter a few hundred thousand people and the rest of the country surrenders?
More likely it vows revenge. And with much of the world sympathetic to it.
You're late to this argument. Douhet's theories have been discredited for decades. While strategic bombing of command centers and production centers can hinder an adversary's ability to wage war, indiscriminately bombing its civilian population neither hinders its ability to wage war nor demoralizes that civilian population.
The Blitz only made the British determined to visit the same on the Germans. Dresden didn't cause the Germans to overthrow the Nazis and surrender. Firebombing Tokyo on a nightly basis didn't cause the Japanese to surrender (and even after two atomic bombs, many Japanese wanted to fight to the death). Rolling Thunder only hardened the North Vietnamese resolve.
Conan the Grammarian at August 22, 2009 5:15 PM
> It's not principles, it's
> pragmatics.
Ohhhh, so you're a pragmatist. Very good! We will remember this about you.
> it's fun hauling ass. Sitting
> in traffic, not so much.
And as could have been predicted, your concern about commuting is not about the environment or foreign wars or anything but your own comfort.
> we have unfortunately made two of
> the world's longest-running
> sources of strife our business
The fight between modernity and primitives was going to happen no matter what... I'm ready to get on with it.
Of all the men I've fought with about nothing in particular, and there have been thousands, you're my new favorite.
You're wrong about everything! That's adorable, amusing as hell!
> it's not our job to fix others'
> societies
Decency is not about just 'doing your job'. In any case, when "others' societies" can intrude in American life as quickly as we see in the modern world, I'm ready to fix them.
> cause they're on our borders.
In the age of airliners, internet communications and Al-Jazeera, borders are much less relevant. Bad guys need to be overwhelmed.
Did you see how the Pan Am guy was welcomed in Libya this weekend? If that gladdens a man's heart, do it make a shit's worth of difference where in the world he lives?
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at August 22, 2009 6:18 PM
So we casually slaughter a few hundred thousand people and the rest of the country surrenders?
It's all about slaughtering terrorists and their hosts. Who cares if the country surrenders?
While strategic bombing of command centers and production centers can hinder an adversary's ability to wage war, indiscriminately bombing its civilian population neither hinders its ability to wage war
I'm talking about bombing discriminately, Conan, not indiscriminately. Clinton occasionally lobbed a few cruise missiles and blew up a building our two.
When we knew where the Taliban leadership was, when we knew Al Qaeda's leadership was in during the Afghan war, right choice would have been a scorched earth policy in that area, and then let the Afghans have their country back.
Whatever at August 22, 2009 6:26 PM
You apparently are the kind of guy who thinks that if we do a whole bunch of abject murder in a short amount of time, maybe God will be busy with something else and not notice before the people are buried, and we can get back to watching Brittny Spears videos.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at August 22, 2009 6:41 PM
You talked about leveling Kandahar. That's pretty much the definition of indiscriminate bombing.
You would be killing people who have no say in their government's actions. The fact that you casually overlook that is a disturbing insight into the liberal mindset.
Your scorched earth policy would turn the Afghans who remain (along with other peoples horrified by our indiscriminate bombing) into dedicated enemies of ours. Where the Taliban and al Qaeda were tolerated before, they will be cheered afterward.
Conan the Grammarian at August 22, 2009 6:44 PM
And as could have been predicted, your concern about commuting is not about the environment or foreign wars or anything but your own comfort.
It's nice when good things come together.
You're wrong about everything! That's adorable, amusing as hell!
Heh. I feel the same! Self-righteously thinking that the rest of the world is just waiting with bated breath to be just like US if only we invade them and occupy them for six months, wait, no six years, wait no (N) years..
The fight between modernity and primitives was going to happen no matter what... I'm ready to get on with it.
So you've picked up your SKS and applied for a job with Blackwater?
http://www.ustraining.com/new/index.asp
Mercenaries are a growth industry!
Or do you wield your keyboard with such deftness that your adversaries keen and wail and prostrate themselves before you without the application of actual physical force?
Decency is not about just 'doing your job'
Who's talking about decency? I'm discussing foreign policy.
As a human being, I feel for the suffering and shitty circumstances many in the world face, some of whom live in countries under Islamic oppression. It's unfortunate.
But I don't think that as a matter of policy, it should be our role to reform these places. I do think we need to do a better job of preventing people from those places coming to the U.S. Better border security, real airline security, extra scrutiny for people from suspect countries.
But fixing these places? That's the job of those who live there. They can choose to do it, or not. We can't force them to. And we sure can't afford to keep acting like we can.
Whatever at August 22, 2009 6:53 PM
Your scorched earth policy would turn the Afghans who remain (along with other peoples horrified by our indiscriminate bombing) into dedicated enemies of ours.
It was/is their power center, no? Where Mullah Omar was? Wasn't Bin Laden hanging nearby?
I think that it would terrify those who attacked us. In response to 9/11, we essentially delegated responsibility for going after our foes to a pretty despicable set of tribal warlords. Better to make an example of what happens to those who support the enemies of the US.
The fact that you casually overlook that is a disturbing insight into the liberal mindset.
I'm not really a liberal. Liberals would be much more into blaming us or thinking that if we just eliminated poverty in X country, there'd be no more terrorism.
I think that a certain portion of any population that believes in God is prone to insane acts based upon purely irrational motivations, and that it is higher for Islam than Christian or Jewish religions. I don't think there's anything to be done to change this. I don't think these people understand anything but force and fear.
Whatever at August 22, 2009 7:04 PM
You apparently are the kind of guy who thinks that if we do a whole bunch of abject murder in a short amount of time, maybe God will be busy with something else and not notice before the people are buried, and we can get back to watching Brittny Spears videos.
If I weren't convinced you were an original thinker, I'd almost think you were inspired by this:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/a_shattered_nation_longs_to_care
Whatever at August 22, 2009 7:06 PM
You are in the sense that you think war can be antiseptic and distant. Simply fling some missiles and bombs at a country, destroy its infrastructure, and kill a large percentage of its population and that's all it takes. The survivors will simply pick themselves up and get on with their lives with no animosity or thoughts of revenge.
So, to get revenge on one guy, you'd level an entire city and kill hundreds of thousands? And not expect them to be ready to do the same?
Conan the Grammarian at August 22, 2009 7:48 PM
destroy its infrastructure
What infrastructure? Donkeys are still a popular means of conveyance.
So, to get revenge on one guy
No: to demonstrate that the consequences for attacking America are so high as to make doing so again unthinkable. The symbolic value of failing to kill Mullah Omar or Osama bin Laden is huge. These people needed to die. If it took killing a bunch of others, fine.
Whatever at August 22, 2009 8:07 PM
And this is why you aren't on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
You don't even have a cursory understanding of our enemy, do you? Do you know how long the Islamists have been attacking Americans?
Do you know why they attack?
Let me lay it out as simply as I possibly can for you:
If we were to drop a 100 MTon fusion bomb on Iran tomorrow, the surviving muslims elsewhere in the world would consider them martyrs and would be lining up to kill any white people they could anywhere in the world.
You also have no grip on history. By the time August, 1945 rolled around, Japan had no ability to project power beyond their own borders, yet still they fought. We knew that the only way the war was going to end was to defeat the Japanese and force them to accept that they had lost.
In other words, they had to be made to surrender and beg for mercy. Only then could peace be discussed.
Two atomic bombs later, and the military was STILL unconvinced. We killed a half a million people in the span of a week. Think of that number. The number of men who lost their lives in the War Between the States (a four year war) were killed strategically between 6 and 9 August, 1945. Mind you this was after we'd already destroyed their army and navy.
And still they fought. Until their Emperor signed that piece of paper.
The only way to defeat the Islamists is to utterly break them. They don't fear us, they never will.
One of the Palestinian leaders explained their position perfectly: "You love life, we love death."
You can't reason with that. You can break it, or you can annihilate it.
Isolation is logistically impossible unless you plan to start blowing civilian airliners out of the sky at their borders.
brian at August 22, 2009 8:46 PM
> Or do you wield your keyboard with
> such deftness that your adversaries
> keen and wail and prostrate
> themselves
We've seen it happen. Mostly I don't pretend that the icky parts of life and civilization can be avoided, as if the miracles that have enriched America are things that can't enrich other cultures because they're... Well, because of whatever about them seems to scare you. Color, faith....
> I don't think that as a matter
> of policy, it should be our role
> to reform these places
And as a matter of policy, it isn't. The occasional stable gets so filthy that we have to go in and muck it out. As Drezner put it recently (paraphrase), if the United States goes outwardly military on your ass, there's no doubt that you've been up to some especially dark shit. Those who complain about this as a matter of course demonstrate a failure of seriousness about the world, as you do: 'Let's just stay away from the scratchy people and pretend their oil doesn't mean anything....'
> Who's talking about decency?
I am, always. Study the glossary and give it a shot.
> But fixing these places? That's
> the job of those who live there.
> They can choose to do it, or not.
No. We can and will insist. Again, your childlike faith that we have a choice about this is stunning.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at August 23, 2009 1:17 AM
Brian, comparisons to Japan are inapt. Japan, was, and is, an industrialized nation-state. Islam, is a religion of a billion or so people of nations all over the place.
Mostly I don't pretend that the icky parts of life and civilization can be avoided, as if the miracles that have enriched America are things that can't enrich other cultures because they're... Well, because of whatever about them seems to scare you. Color, faith..
Because they have no demonstrated an interest in the things we are interested in. Getting along with people who look and believe different things than you do. Or else, recognizing that there are plenty of ignorant assholes one would probably do better ignoring. And then ignoring them. Or shit, going to work with these same people and building useful things because nihilism is a shitty way to go about life.
>Again, your childlike faith that we have a choice about this is stunning.
Your faith that we can make a difference in these cultures is stunning to me. Its ahistoricity is also stunning. How many imperial armies have failed in these places? What is different now, the sprinkling of magical American sauce? But really - you expect us to be able to turn Iraq and Afghanistan into well-behaved secular democracies (or, republics)? Won't happen, is a waste trying, as long as their people don't want it and are more tribalists than nationalists.
We have a choice. We always did. Leave cesspools be. Destroy places as needed. Get busy protecting our borders and controlling immigration.
Don't waste trillions on countries and people that are never likely to help us.
Whatever at August 23, 2009 8:43 AM
OK, Whatever.
Propose a foreign policy that would have prevented 9/11 from being successfully carried out.
I promise you that there is not one you can come up with that will allow you to continue to believe that you are a good person.
brian at August 23, 2009 9:50 AM
Two pieces of bread, a pile of shit, ketchup, mustard, and secret sauce, you're still eating a shit sandwich, enjoy!
jksisco at August 23, 2009 10:21 AM
Propose a foreign policy that would have prevented 9/11 from being successfully carried out.
Not funding and arming the jihadis in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 80s would have certainly reduced the amount of training a young OBL got, possibly creating a circumstance where their cause lacked a charismatic leader with millions in personal money at his disposal.
So that would have been one place.
But I'm more talking about what we should have done after 9/11, most of which was utterly destroying the Taliban's power center and the camps where Al Qaeda were hanging out. We knew where they were on that day, and failed to act decisively and quickly. In my opinion, this was the gravest error of the "War on Terror". The only other that compares being our continuing failure to secure our borders.
Whatever at August 23, 2009 11:16 AM
> Destroy places as needed.
The sophistication of an infant, the morality of a sea slug.
I'm guessing this isn't a policy you've recommended to a lot friends in conversational settings.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at August 23, 2009 11:50 AM
So amused I dropped that phrase into Google, and look what came out: An infantile rant about weak consumer experiences from that most infantile of cities.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at August 23, 2009 11:53 AM
The sophistication of an infant, the morality of a sea slug.
I'm guessing this isn't a policy you've recommended to a lot friends in conversational settings.
I have most certainly shared the critical components of my arguments here with friends:
1. We have no business fixing other nations, especially those that have demonstrated no interest in fixing themselves.
2. Less meddling about in the foreign affairs of other countries is a good plan; the less well we understand the cultures we're messing with, the more likely meddling will come back to bite us in the ass.
3. When we have decided to use military force against those who have harmed, we should do so with overwhelming ferocity.
most infantile of cities.
This is coming from someone who lives in LA, the home of porn and teevee? Roflercopterz.
And just cause:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8lLb31ZxGk
Whatever at August 23, 2009 12:10 PM
*When we have decided to use military force against those who have harmed
intended =
When we have decided to use military force against those who have harmed us
Whatever at August 23, 2009 12:12 PM
OBL didn't get his start there. He started out wanting to take down the Saudi monarchy. I'm pretty sure he was already well indoctrinated in Jihad by the time he was kicked out of the country and found himself in Sudan. Where, incidentally, they wanted him gone so bad they offered him to Bill Clinton, who said "No, thanks, I'm driving."
So not fighting the Soviets would not have impacted 9/11 one lick.
Which we did. Remember how the media went on and on about how we were in a quagmire in Afghanistan, and we'd never survive the "brutal Afghan winter"?
Or were you proposing carpet-nuking Afghanistan? Because there's really nothing in between what we did and that.
And if you ARE proposing that, congratulations! You're as much of a monster as I am.
Wanna hear my proposal on 9/12/01? Start with the nukes on the east bank of the Jordan river, and don't stop until there's nothing alive between there and the Hindu Kush.
Think the world would have loved us any more if we did that instead of invading Iraq?
That's a rhetorical question, by the way.
brian at August 23, 2009 12:19 PM
Where, incidentally, they wanted him gone so bad they offered him to Bill Clinton, who said "No, thanks, I'm driving."
Clinton. Good on domestic policy, shit on foreign policy. It's like the inverse of his predecessor.
Or were you proposing carpet-nuking Afghanistan? Because there's really nothing in between what we did and that.
I wouldn't have been averse to the idea! But if you recall, there was this charade that went on after 9/11, where we basically went to the Taliban, and said, you got Bin Laden, you need to give him to us, and they said no. We knew where he was, too. Then we waited months to actually go to war. The night they said no, every major Taliban stronghold, plus the Al Qaeda camp needed to be in flames.
Either that, or on 9/12. That would have worked, too.
Whatever at August 23, 2009 1:00 PM
> I have most certainly shared
> the critical components
Don't be technical! I want you to tell people frankly and plainly, like you told us here on the anonymous blog. The policy of the United States should be, in four short words:
> Destroy places as needed.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at August 23, 2009 2:04 PM
> Destroy places as needed.
I'm of two minds here. 1) Why the fuck should I do anything some anonymous dude on a blog asks? 2) Not a bad summary of how to I think we should deal with our enemies.
Whatever at August 23, 2009 4:13 PM
I suppose we ought to at least give him credit for believing that we HAVE enemies. It's hard enough to get most liberals to admit that much.
brian at August 23, 2009 6:28 PM
> I'm of two minds here.
This gulf is called "shame".
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at August 23, 2009 7:01 PM
This gulf is called "shame".
No. This gulf is your problematic reading comprehension. I'm not ashamed.
I'm of two minds because 1) my natural instinct is do the opposite of what presumptuous douchebags tell me to do, yet 2) "destroy places as needed" is a tidy summary of how I think we should deal with our enemies.
That's a little more clarity.
whatever at August 23, 2009 8:41 PM
You should run for school board.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at August 23, 2009 8:50 PM
As the name says, whatever.
Whatever at August 23, 2009 9:17 PM
Clearly Whatever prefers Saddam still be running Iraq.
There are any number of arguments for taking out Saddam, most of them pretty obvious, but apparently not obvious enough for surrenderists.
There is one argument, though, that is less obvious. Iraq and Iran had become mortal enemies, with missiles lobbed at each others' cities, and over a million dead on the battle field.
Now, imagine if you will, the collapse of the sanctions (inevitable, due to the connivance of the French and Russians).
How far along do you suppose that Iranian nuclear weapons program would be?
There is one other thing surrenderists excel at: depriving designated victim peoples of moral agency.
Since we deposed Saddam, at least 100,000 Iraqis have died.
At the hands of other Iraqis.
If they wanted a civil society more than slaughtering each other, we would have long ago been shot of the place.
They do not.
That is very sad for all the dead and their families. However, it does have the beneficial knock-on effect of demonstrating the nihilistic savagery of Islamism.
Hey Skipper at August 23, 2009 9:27 PM
Whatever prefers Saddam still be running Iraq
I think it's preferable to us doing it for a trillion+ dollars and no end in sight.
Iraq and Iran had become mortal enemies, with missiles lobbed at each others' cities, and over a million dead on the battle field.
So we gave a big boost to Iran by destroying the military capability of its chief enemy and installing a government that is very cosy with them. Geopolitical genius!
If they wanted a civil society more than slaughtering each other, we would have long ago been shot of the place.
They do not.
Exactly, exactly. So let's fuck off and let them slaughter each other if that's what they want to do.
Whatever at August 24, 2009 7:24 AM
Whatever -
You're missing one key point to middle-east politics.
As expressed by one Palestinian during the Hamas/Fatah civil war: "Brothers, why are we killing each other while there are still Jews?"
Leaving them to slaughter each other won't work.
brian at August 24, 2009 9:06 AM
Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian issue don't seem closely connected; and Israel has proven itself to be more than capable of self-defense.
Abandoning Iraq would greatly increase the likelihood of serious Sunni-Shia conflicts across the region, as different groups jockey for control there. I think that civil war there would suck up a lot of the anti-Jewish energy for a good while.
whatever at August 24, 2009 11:29 AM
Whatever:
Nice job of dodging the central problem.
One of the reasons to invade Iraq was to avoid a nuclear arms race in the area.
What would you have proposed, instead?
Hey Skipper at August 24, 2009 8:19 PM
Hey Skipper, you're late to the thread.
Read above. I would have suggested doing absolutely nothing to Iraq we weren't already doing because Iraq posed no threat to us. Iraq was never meaningfully connected to the jihadis that attacked us, and was a useful counterbalance to Iranian power in the region. Now they're BFFs! Awesome!
Following 9/11 I would have pursued a policy that, as soon as possible after the Taliban refused to turn over OBL, would have utterly destroyed Taliban and Al Qaeda strongholds in that country. Burned them to the fucking ground and then got the fuck out.
I don't believe it's our job to fix the perpetually fucked places in the world.
Whatever at August 24, 2009 9:28 PM
I'm late to the thread, but I have read the whole thing.
Your position is empty. You appear to have no real idea about the goals and actions of any other entities (UN, France, Russia, China, for example).
You focus exclusively on Iraq's immediate threat without considering the future, particularly when that future requires making some decision with respect to Northern Watch, Deny Flight, and the collapsing sanctions regime (see France, Russia, UN, above).
Finally, and most importantly, you continue to completely ignore the downside risk of an Iraq freed from sanctions, and the headlong nuclear weapons race among all countries in the region that would have almost certainly resulted. (NB: Saddam intentionally gave the world reason to believe he possessed WMD precisely because of his fear of the Iranians. Those are words from his own mouth, BTW.)
The sanctions regime was going to collapse. Without taking that, and the consequences into account, your position amounts to arguing for a null.
Hey Skipper at August 24, 2009 9:54 PM
One more, and then we can let this thread die:
A nuclear arms race in the middle east is not a good thing. Those regimes are not stable or sane or deterrable.
And as of now Iran and Iraq both possess the technology to hit western Europe.
I get that there are a great many people in te world who could give a fuck if Israel gets nuked. I'm not among them, I don't want to see Israel get attacked any more at all.
But if Iran has the ability to engage in nuclear blackmail against, say, France? What then? We already know that the regime in Iran does not fear destruction.
brian at August 25, 2009 6:51 AM
Finally, and most importantly, you continue to completely ignore the downside risk of an Iraq freed from sanctions, and the headlong nuclear weapons race among all countries in the region that would have almost certainly resulted.
We're all arguing counterfactuals at this point. You say the sanctions regime was collapsing, which it maybe was, but the imperative to act when we did was not there. Saddam's entire infrastructure was in a shambles. He was many years away from being a threat.
And should that threat have actually manifested - should we have needed to act to prevent nuclear weapons development - we could have done it a la Israel back in the day, and simply bombed their facilities.
But open-ended occupations of nations of people that despise us at the expense of trillions of dollars, thousands of lives, and the great limitation of our ability to act militarily elsewhere strikes me as foolish and wasteful.
Bush was right in his first campaign when he opposed the idea of nation building. He should of stuck with that one.
Whatever at August 25, 2009 7:35 AM
...should have.... OR ...should've....
Conan the Grammarian at August 25, 2009 8:55 AM
...should have.... OR ...should've....
Yeah, yeah. Living up to the second part of your name, I suppose. Though I refuse to be held accountable for phonologically indistinguishable typos until after my second cup of coffee.
Whatever at August 25, 2009 9:06 AM
He was many years away from being a threat.
Again, you miss the point.
An unfettered Iraq with Saddam in charge would have caused the Iranians to go all out on their nuclear weapons program.
Which, with equally little doubt, would have led to an arms race throughout the region.
That is what I mean by your argument being empty. You criticize the current state of affairs without pausing for a moment to consider what the imminent collapse of the sanctions regime would have led to.
Hey Skipper at August 25, 2009 1:12 PM
imminent collapse of the sanctions regime would have led to.
You're making a huge assumption about how things would have gone had the sanctions regime collapsed. It isn't just the U.S. All of the regional players have significant incentives in preventing either of them from going nuclear.
whatever at August 25, 2009 1:32 PM
You're making a huge assumption about how things would have gone had the sanctions regime collapsed.
It is not a huge assumption -- given the history between Iraq and Iran, it would be sheer negligence to consider such a thing other than very likely. After all, why did Iran have a nuclear weapons program ongoing before 2003?
Should it have happened, the consequences would have been incalculable. You blithely ignore them.
Hey Skipper at August 25, 2009 4:17 PM
After all, why did Iran have a nuclear weapons program ongoing before 2003?
Because it is entirely rational for all nations who feel any sort of military threats to want to go nuclear.
The reason why it's a huge assumption, is that you just assume that absent a U.S. invasion of Iraq – one action out of a whole bunch of options – that there would have been a nuclear arms race between Iran and Iraq and that nothing else would have prevented it. No other combination of military tactics, or economic carrots or sticks, nothing else could have headed off an arms race. That's a big assumption.
Whatever at August 25, 2009 5:37 PM
Absent a US invasion of Iraq, there was no alternative except to cease enforcing the UN imposed (and UN undermined, with particular connivance from the French and Russians) sanctions regime.
That meant, no assumption required, that Iraq would have been free to rearm. There is equally no doubt that Saddam would resume attempting to obtain nuclear weapons. Even Scott Ritter agreed with that. (NB: it is only as a consequence of Desert Storm that we discovered how close he was to obtaining them in 1991).
So, your huge assumption is that none of this would make any difference to the Iranians, who lost hundreds of thousands of people to a war with Iraq only 20 years ago.
The worst part of that assumption is that you didn't even think about it until I brought it up.
You should spend some time thinking about the downside risks of Iran and Iraq obtaining nuclear weapons.
Then, having attempted to come to terms with the now-obvious, consider what it would be worth to prevent that outcome.
That redefines naivety
Hey Skipper at August 25, 2009 7:29 PM
Then, having attempted to come to terms with the now-obvious, consider what it would be worth to prevent that outcome.
Occasionally bombing their weapons nuclear facilities.
You also assume that pursuing nuclear weapons would have been a ballistic process that couldn't be stopped once it started.
Or that once it looked like a nuclear arms race was starting between Iran and Iraq, some of the wayward nations of the UN, or the Israelis or some of the other people nearby might step in.
I'm a big believer that we, the U.S. cannot afford to police the world, nor is it in our strategic interests to continue to live in that role.
That redefines naivety
I'm not naive in the slightest. I just have zero interest in nation building, and think that our interests are best served by avoiding taking responsibility for the shitholes of the earth. Iraq being one of those.
Whatever at August 25, 2009 8:47 PM
You may believe that, but your prescription amounts to making us a hostage to fortune.
Given what is at stake, that is reckless.
This will be my last post on this, so I shall leave off with this observation:
I doubt you could provide a reasonably concise precis of the various actors involved and their goals; the history of UN actions in the area; or, the knock-on effects of the only alternative on offer -- dropping the sanctions.
Therefore, you end up providing what is essentially a null. There was no such thing as not a choice, yet that is precisely the ground you choose to defend.
Hey Skipper at August 25, 2009 9:29 PM
This will be my last post on this, so I shall leave off with this observation:
Oh, if only this thread would end.
You may believe that, but your prescription amounts to making us a hostage to fortune.
As an empiricist, it would have given us the freedom to act on actual information, rather than speculation. We always had it in our power to destroy Iraq, from one end to the other, on a whim, in short order. Therefore, they were never more than a brief period of time away from utter decimation; it would take a while to load the stealth bombers and B-52s, but not that long. They were always subject to our desire to destroy them. How long did it take in Gulf War I?
Following 9/11, people were all too willing to give too much creedence to pissant nations who could be decimated in short order. Iraq fell in that category.
Sorry, but when we invaded, Iraq was years away from being a credible threat to us, Iran, Israel, or anyone other than its own people. You can't deny that. You also can't say what would have happened had evidence of their re-arming surfaced. My guess is the world wouldn't have taken it lightly.
Nope. Invading Iraq was pure choice. We had all kinds of other options, for several years. But now, here's what we got:
Iraq will be a colony of Iran
Talk about an epic fucking FAIL.
Whatever at August 25, 2009 9:52 PM
Leave a comment