Grew up middle class, went to prep school and Harvard, affected a working class style but I doubt any working class people were ever interested in him. A likeable old commie, naive and innocent to the end.Ron Radosh at PJMedia who knew Seeger personally concluded with this:
I know Pete would not have said that if I had been writing books about fascism.
More than likely, he would have praised my doing so. Pete, like so many others on the Left, simply failed to realize that communism is fascism’s twin.
Some also take umbrage, as does Graham, with calling Seeger anti-American. In his Mother Jones [8] article, David Hajdu, who spent time with Seeger before writing the article, called him “devoted to a few simple ideas, a nostalgist whose worldview often seems frozen in the era of his own coming-of-age.” He adds: “A strain of anti-Americanism has always run through Seeger’s work.”
If you don’t think that is the case, listen to the Smithsonian Folkways CD “Pete Seeger Sing-a-Long,” recorded at the Sanders Theater in Cambridge, Mass., in 1980. In an impromptu remark, Seeger makes a comment about how if the people had guns, you better watch out, because you don’t know whom the people would use the guns against. The comment receives huge cheers. That is to be expected of from an audience in the People’s Republic of Cambridge.
Sunkara is right about one thing. He quotes Bruce Springsteen, who wrote that Seeger showed how song could “nudge history along.” Seeger did indeed help make communism more fashionable, and that is a tragedy, not something for which Pete Seeger should ever have received praise.
Glen Reynolds at Instapundit linked to others...
JOHN FUND: Pete Seeger, Totalitarian Troubadour. “We shouldn’t forget that Pete Seeger was Communism’s pied piper.”Instapundit finished the post with a link to a fitting song by mathematics professor and satirist Tom Lehrer:
Related: Spengler: Pete Seeger: A Mean-Spirited and Vengeful Recollection. “I was not just a Pete Seeger fan, but a to-the-hammer-born, born-and-bred cradle fan of Pete Seeger. With those credentials, permit me to take note of his passing with the observation that he was a fraud, a phony, a poseur, an imposter. The notion of folk music he espoused was a put-on from beginning to end. There is no such thing as an American ‘folk.’”
(which is as good an excuse as any for this post)
381 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 381 of 381That's probably correct, although the commenters were vague about their income.
If it is $60K, they are eligible for subsidy; if $69,999, possibly not. That's without invoking the hardship clause.
erp is making up stuff again. Even if you say 'no insurance' the ER has to treat you.
Turning away the sick because of no money is the conservative, capitalist way.
Some of us remember Ron Paul who claimed to accept payment in chickens, and then when his chief of staff had a catastrophic event without insurance did not pay off in 200,000 chickens but with fiat money extorted from paulbots.
If you want to see a convert to gummint healthcare, find a sick rightwinger like Ayn Rand who faked a name to collect.
Deductible is $12,700, but since they have been paying 100% or going without for 10 years, it sounds like a deal to me.
Unless they're already paying at least $12,700 a year in medical expenses any plan will be more expensive and if they're only paying a couple thousand a year (quite possible, certainly my wife and I spend under $1K/year) it will be far more expensive.
Not true for those (almost all) in employer plans.
Um, I realize you don't actually read what anyone else writes, but we have been talking about people under the ACA mandate for 2014 which doesn't include those in employer plans.
What is amazing is that I needed 2 minutes, maybe less, to discover that in the internet, in order to answer AOG up above. What's the matter with those people?
I think you've got a causality problem there. Check the time stamps. I find it hard to believe you looked up the answer to Eagar's point before he actually asked it.
I would also point out you didn't answer my question, which was not about the rules but about how they are enforced if the government doesn't know if you paid the premiums.
AOG,
No causality violation here - check my link on exemptions, I've sent it to you before Harry's post and was aware of them when reading him.
And I guess it was pretty clear trhoughout my arguments that I expect your govt. to have that information on premiums at some point.
Even if they get it quite delayed, I guess they can fine you later on, can't they? For example, if they ony process in 2016 that you were uninsured in 2014, they still can fine you for that year, no? Here in Brazil it works like that, there is a period of 5 years for our IRS to charge you for something happening now.
Well, of course, they did not give necessary details; funny how that works whenever someone tries to come up with Obamacare horror stories:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/02/25/morning-plum-obamacare-horror-stories-fall-apart-under-scrutiny/?hpid=z2
My baseline is that 'Bette in Spokane' is the most horrible horror story they have got -- otherwise why didn't they use a worse one in that splendid forum? -- and it turned out to be another hoax.
It's hoaxes all th3e way down.
Even the worst case for 'Virginia couple' is not so very bad from the insurance point of view. For a decade they have risked everything by being uninsured. Evidently it has been a lucky bet so far. They are certainly NOT going to be 'worse off' if they pay $12,700 + $5,700 some years but are covered for, eg, a cancer treatment in some other years.
A colleague is on leave for treatment of liver disease. The list price of a 90-day supply of her little liver pills is $160,000. It sort of works out. Her employer pays some tens of thousands a year in premiums for his dozen or so employees -- but not for me, I am exempt -- and not every year does one of hem need liver treatment. I have detected no real comprehension on this thread, except from clovis, of the concept 'insurance.' It isn't that deep, folks.
Well, at least you've moved from "no such stories" to "they are all hoaxes". Progress of sorts.
You do exemplify what this is about when you talk about that couple in Virginia, which is precisely that they cannot be permitted to decide what is a deal or what risks are reasonable. They must be forced to do what someone else thinks is best. Coercion, that's the real goal for you.
AOG,
---
They must be forced to do what someone else thinks is best. Coercion, that's the real goal for you.
---
And I repeat: they very probably qualify for exemption, hence they are not being coerced to do anything at all but a little more paperwork in their IRS declaration.
And if they continue to go bare, eventually they will get a whopper of a bill/or die in the street for lack of treatment.
If it's a whopper, I get to pay it, so there's the coercion I care about.
But even if you do not accept that, th one-year 'financial analysis' just proves newothr you nor they understand the concept 'insurance.'
I've been paying homeowners insurance premiums for over 40 years, never had a claim, hope I never do. But I'm still paying.
Clovis;
Read Eagar's comment again, and show me where he mentions the exemption. My point was about Eagar's philosophical / political view.
Mr. Eagar;
I could do the same analysis for the previous 10 years as well. But again, the real point is who decides. If you don't like paying for their mistakes, I support that 100%, although I'd be curious about how that mechanism would actually work.
Clovis;
I simply can't resist. You wrote
ACA did not fail yet. They signed up 6 million, out of a provision for 7
Um, the Department of Health and Human Services 4 million signups. So you're a bit off, there.
Moreover, Secretary of HHS Sebelius says that 7 million number was someone else, even though she's on tape saying it.
The White House has left you defending a position not even they find tenable any longer.
I have to wonder - is there any point here at which you might possibly begin to think these people are not completely truthful and we should be cautious in accepting any of their claims? Or are they completely trustworthy no matter how many false statements they make?
AOG,
My comment was misguided. I was aware that they were projecting to sign up 6 million instead of 7 (so it is not "they signed up", but "they intend to sign up").
It looks like they now fear barely getting to 5.
---
I have to wonder - is there any point here at which you might possibly begin to think these people are not completely truthful and we should be cautious in accepting any of their claims?
---
There is, and that point was crossed in Obama's first year. So it was my mistake indeed to parlot their number without more caution.
That said, there is a reason contracts are celebrated in ink: talk is cheap. So I prefer to reserve judgment for the final numbers, disclosed in ink, paper and bits, for they will let no doubt as to the real picture here.
I do not think you can dismiss CBO projections as easily as Sebelius does. A number like 5 million will probably mean financial stresses for at least a few insurance companies with "bad" pools.
Ouch, writing from my wife's gadgets again. Stil Clovis.
'I'd be curious about how that mechanism would actually work.'
Easy. Let 'em die. That was the tea party chant at the convention. Policy devised, so simple.
That used to be the policy. I've seen it in action. When I was a cub reporter, the cops pulled corpses out of the abandoned houses in every cold snap. (erp's fantasies to the contrary)
It's called -- ahem -- rationing, and you are on record against it, I think.
Clovis;
reserve judgment for the final numbers
Numbers provided by an untrustworthy government? Again, in all seriousness, why should I believe those numbers even if written in ink? The point about Sebelius was that she willing to deny saying something that we have a video tape of her saying. If she'll do that, what's fudging some numbers in a report?
Harry, dead bodies are being pulled out of abandoned buildings even when there isn't a cold snap. How is forcing working people to buy into an insurance Ponzi scheme going to stop substance abusers from overdosing, setting fire to the building, etc., etc. Do think the folks at the local crack house or the violent gangs in the inner cities who murder and maim are going to on line or use pen/pencil to pick the policy that most suits their needs?
I don't know which scenario is the more droll (droller):
1. Spaced out junkies filling out forms for Obamacare or
2. Tea party people chanting "let them die."
If I had to pick which of the two would be the most likely to happen, I'd go for number 1 in a New York minute.
AOG,
---
Again, in all seriousness, why should I believe those numbers even if written in ink? The point about Sebelius was that she willing to deny saying something that we have a video tape of her saying. If she'll do that, what's fudging some numbers in a report?
---
Are you kidding? Those are very different things.
A politician talking about a hypothetical optimal number of future signups is one thing - she is only making a fool of herself with all the contradictions.
Now a report with false numbers of real signups and insurance contracts realized, is fraud, of the kind that leads to prison.
I believe your country is not in such a state of corruption where the above would get a free pass.
Yeah, how could anyone believe government when they have the alternative of believing Americans for Prosperity?
http://wonkette.com/542691/terrible-lefties-attack-woman-with-cancer-in-dumb-lying-tea-party-ad#more-542691
erp, you need to watch Republican video. The let-em-die chant already happened. Like you say, nothing escapes video any more.
Harry, perhaps you've missed the numerous times I've opined that RINO's are more despicable the overt lefties.
I'm sure there's a video of people chanting. I'm not so sure that it wasn't staged for propaganda purposes and there's no chance of my using any of what's left of my occular functions watching it.
What say you to my link to an article in the newspaper about the ER at the local hospital (a branch of the place your wife had such caring care) pre-screening and shunting off those they'd rather not see? Fantasy or fact?
Of course, it wasn't verified on the Wonkette, so the piece doesn't have the inprimatur of authenticity of your links.
Clovis;
Now a report with false numbers of real signups and insurance contracts realized, is fraud, of the kind that leads to prison.
Would it? I honestly doubt that, if it was done by someone in the Democratic Party. Giving false testimony to Congress used to cause the same thing, but not for Sec. Clapper. Or stealing $1.2B of investor money, unless you're an Obama bundler. Or using government power to suppress political dissent, unless you're in Obama's IRS. Who's been arrested or even fired for that?
What I suspect is that numbers will be released, and then once embedded will be "revised". It's what they've done, over and over, with economic data like unemployment and GDP growth without suffering any negative consequences.
Clovis;
Here is another data point in which a Democratic Party Senator, chairman of the Senate Helth, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, visits Cuba and returns to say "their public health system is quite remarkable".
Why should I not conclude from this that the Democratic Party would be fine with imposing a Cuba style and quality health care system on the USA? The Senator did not get any blowback from his party for these statements.
So, if the success metric is getting the uninsured to sign up, what if they don't like POR-care either?
It is remarkable, considering what went before and what goes on now in non-commie neighbors. He might have said similar about literacy in Cuba.
AOG,
---
Would it? I honestly doubt that, if it was done by someone in the Democratic Party. Giving false testimony to Congress used to cause the same thing, but not for Sec. Clapper.
---
The problem in this case is that both parties, and a good majority of the US public opinion, believes he was right in lying the way he did. The continuous spying games played by the NSA have the implicit approval of most Americans, who since 9/11 look to believe they need to sacrifice privacy/basic rights for the sake of safety, or whatever.
I know you'll disagree, but the same pattern of thinking that got you in Iraq war II is behind this erosion of civil rights. Which makes your complaint of Clapper disingenious.
---
Or stealing $1.2B of investor money, unless you're an Obama bundler. Or using government power to suppress political dissent, unless you're in Obama's IRS. Who's been arrested or even fired for that?
---
I don't know what is the reference related to that $1.2B case. As for the IRS case, you have a point.
---
Why should I not conclude from this that the Democratic Party would be fine with imposing a Cuba style and quality health care system on the USA? The Senator did not get any blowback from his party for these statements.
---
Gosh. It is quite a weird argument you are making here.
Had the senator commented on how the Cuban beaches are beautiful, would you fear he wants to turn Florida beaches in a communist heaven?
Clovis;
the same pattern of thinking that got you in Iraq war II is behind this erosion of civil rights.
Yes, I completely disagree. It is clear that was was said then was believed by those who said it, in contrast to Clapper who knew perfectly well he was stating falsehoods.
For the theft, see here.
I think your beach analogy is the weird argument - we have a government imposing a national health system, but a Senator directly involved in that, praising health systems in anther country, is irrelevant? Beyond which you think landscaping is identical to legislating?
AOG,
---
Yes, I completely disagree. It is clear that was was said then was believed by those who said it, in contrast to Clapper who knew perfectly well he was stating falsehoods.
---
It is amazing how your skepticism over politicians only extends to the ones in the other side of the aisle. There were no lack of false declarations by officials within Bush administration.
---
[...] but a Senator directly involved in that, praising health systems in anther country, is irrelevant? Beyond which you think landscaping is identical to legislating?
---
Unless he explicitly defends one system as example to the other, there is little to the matter. And there is nothing wrong with him declaring what he truly saw - the contrary, he declaring the healthcare in Cuba as dismal if he did not see it in such state, would indeed be wrong, for he would be lying for political purposes.
Which leads us to where beaches and healthcare in Cuba have something in common: only because a country has so many things wrong within, it does not mean you must hide the good things it may have too.
It is amazing how your skepticism over politicians only extends to the ones in the other side of the aisle.
Because I don't accept your view of the matter, I must have no skepticism? It couldn't possibly because I researched it on my own and came the same conclusions. Sycophancy is the only possible explanation. Or, as I noted, there is a difference between being wrong (making a statement that turns out to be false) and lying (making a statement you know, at the time, is false).
We've also been over this before I found none of your claims in this regard more plausible than the Bush Administration on the subject.
Unless he explicitly defends one system as example to the other, there is little to the matter.
Does the same apply to people who praise aspects of Pinochet's rule in Chile?
AOG,
---
We've also been over this before I found none of your claims in this regard more plausible than the Bush Administration on the subject.
---
Please notice I've enlarged the topic to the whole Bush administration. Which makes me curious: have you ever been distrustful of any event happening during it at all?
---
Does the same apply to people who praise aspects of Pinochet's rule in Chile?
---
Surely. I also can praise some aspects of Chile at those times. Which is very different from stating that Pinochet was a hero, as a friend of ours here is on record saying.
Clovis, it may be cultural, but I don't understand your frequent absolutist conjecture when none was said or implied. I said Pinochet saved Chile from Allende and Soviet communism and turned Chile into the most stable prosperous country in South America.
I never used the word hero, a word I reserve for people who do something heroic.
i don't believe for a minute that Bush ever did anything he didn't think was the best for the country and not for his own gain either in power or money, but I understand that many men, my husband included, were very disappointed that instead of coming on strong, Bush tried to work with establishment lefties even the despicable Teddy Kennedy and didn't go after the media when they bashed and demonized him.
To compare Bush with Obama is ludicrous.
Erp,
You once said to me, and I quote, "Pinochet was to my knowledge the only true democrat in power anywhere in S.A.".
I think it is even worse than calling him a hero, for you not only promote a murderer but also make a mockery of democracy.
But no one can accuse you of double standards at this point. By all you write here, your understanding of "democracy" is pretty much along those lines indeed.
Clovis;
Which makes me curious: have you ever been distrustful of any event happening during it at all?
Well, distrustful - I'm not sure about that. Bush was rather open and honest for a politician, particularly compared to his predecessor. Certainly I had some strong policy disagreements with him, but that's not quite the same thing. I still distinguish between being wrong and being untruthful.
I think members of his Administration behaved dishonestly, particularly Colin Powell and Richard Armitage during the Plame brouhaha.
And speaking of dishonest, here is a classic example of what I brought up earlier - a massive revision of GDP growth. I have seen a huge amount of claims about recovery based on the original figure, but I can be assured none of the people will mention this "adjustment". So you want final figures on POR-care enrollments - how can we know when those will be released? That origin 3.2% growth was, as you say, in ink and now it's no longer operative.
AOG,
I will wait if Harry agrees with you that the Palmer imbroglio is the only thing within the Bush administration that smelled fishy.
I was not reading American newspapers in a regular basis back then to remember the internal issues thoroughly, but I can remember a few external ones. In particular, I would not describe as honest the use of torture practices and illegal renditions all over the world - sometimes of innocents that were never compensated, and I am not talking only about Guantanamo.
But hey, those were not Americans, so who cares? Well, I do remember also complaints of civil groups being infiltrated and/or intimidated back then too, in worse style than this IRS thing. But hey, those were progressives, so who cares?
---
So you want final figures on POR-care enrollments - how can we know when those will be released? That origin 3.2% growth was, as you say, in ink and now it's no longer operative.
---
I am not sure if this is a good example, since the original figure of 3.2 was explicitly a guess, or so I understand form that part "The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for the “advance” estimate issued last month."
An ""advance" estimate" is supposed to be... an estimate, right?
Richard Armitage and I were on the same high school football team. He is in the school's Hall of Fame and I am not.
I have almost no interest in the Plame case, a sideshow when really important and disastrous policies that killed tens of thousands of people were being made. I was contemplating different things then.
Was Bush dishonest? I think he truly believed a great deal of his nonsense. That will not bring all those people he killed back, so who cares?
As for Cuba's medical system being remarkable, who could deny it? If Guy thinks the sentaor was thereby advocating that the US adopt a system of 'barefoot doctors,' then he is even deeper in the partisan fantasy that drove me out of Thought Mesh than he was several years ago.
Alternatively, perhaps Guy doesn't know anything about Cuba.
Harry agrees with you that the Palmer imbroglio is the only thing within the Bush administration that smelled fishy.
I didn't write that. It does appear, though, that Harry agrees Bush was mostly honest.
I would not describe as honest the use of torture practices and illegal renditions all over the world
Why not? We knew about it, the illegality is disputable, and it was a precedent set by a Democratic Party President. Bush's mistake was to be actually honest about it and try to create an actual legal basis (see, John Yoo). He was severely punished for that, whereas his dishonest predecessor avoided any accountability. I personally think it's bad policy, but I would be hard pressed to describe Bush's role as "dishonest". You seem to be using it as a synomym for "I don't like it", which is not what it means in English.
do remember also complaints of civil groups being infiltrated and/or intimidated back then too, in worse style than this IRS thing
During the Bush Adminstration? Seriously? References, please.
I am not sure if this is a good example, since the original figure of 3.2 was explicitly a guess
Yeah, you always have some excuse when it's a point I make. You said Sebelius on video tape wasn't rigorous enough, it had to be written down, and then when I provide exactly that, it's still just a guess. Whatever. At some point, when the guess is too high almost every time, some of us get just a tad suspicious. One might also note that Old Media certainly doesn't treat it as a guess when reporting on the economy.
As for Cuba's medical system being remarkable, who could deny it?
Me. I deny it. As for advocacy, is your view that people object to implementing something they consider "remarkable"? Why bring it up at all, except as advocacy?
Ah, Harry, master of the switch and bait. You and little Rickie were on the same HS football team. What does that have to do with hatchet job done on innocent people ... and do tell us, was his future boss Colin the darkie kid who cleaned the locker room?
The Plame case isn't at all important? What a shocker!
... and since nobody knows anything about Cuba except what they want the moronic media, Hollywooders and the silly church ladies who go there to aw and ah over Che to see, aog can't be much faulted not having intimate knowledge of Cuban inner circle intrigues.
AOG,
----
[Clovis] I would not describe as honest the use of torture practices and illegal renditions all over the world
Why not? We knew about it, the illegality is disputable, [...]
I personally think it's bad policy, but I would be hard pressed to describe Bush's role as "dishonest". You seem to be using it as a synomym for "I don't like it", which is not what it means in English.
----
The illegality is disputable?
Let us skip hypotheticals. Take this German citizen as example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri
The man is taken by very smart agents who, in Internet age, can still get the wrong guy who has the same name as the bad guy. He is tortured in the worst ways, and after months (yeah, months, in Internet age) of suffering, is freed far away from home with no apologies.
The German courts who judged his captors in absence definitely did not think the "illegality is disputable". The US never hinted even regret, nor will ever give in any of the perpetrators.
Of course I am using the word "dishonest" in misguided ways, for this is way beyond that. If you want to hang on technicalities of language, I'd like to say that Nazi camps of concentration were certainly legal within Germany in the 40's - I guess we may say none of their soldiers and murderers were being "dishonest" by their own laws, no matter what they were doing there, right? I can't phantom why then some of them were hanged later on in the Nuremberg trials...
I must admit, AOG, one great difficulty I have in understanding your views: how can someone who declares himself a Libertarian, who looks to praise freedom, can honestly look to such a case and tell me that... "the illegality is disputable"?
---
During the Bush Adminstration? Seriously? References, please.
---
Here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/20/AR2010092003100.html
An older one too:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20fbi.html?pagewanted=all
Were you aware of it?
---
eah, you always have some excuse when it's a point I make. [...] At some point, when the guess is too high almost every time, some of us get just a tad suspicious.
---
Hey, this is not personal. I am asking from you what I would from anyone making that argument.
You provide me a link about a wrong guess, with no information at all about any previous guesses, so how is it "too high almost every time"? Furthermore, the same link made no comment on how such a guess is made and why it could have been so wrong.
And a crime needs a motive. What had anyone gained from faking that number only to correct it 2 weeks later? You link also comments that market analysts expected the number to be lower, so how was anyone being fooled?
You first complain of my lack of skepticism. Then you complain I have too much of it. So I must be skeptic only when you agree I should be?
I consider the ignorance and biblical motivations of the Incurious George administration remarkable, even for Republicans, but that does not mean I endorse going back that way.
I guess Guy has not noticed that broad stats on the economy are almost always revised, and sometimes by large amounts. Most people would conclude that the first release of the numbers is not worth paying a lot of attention to -- and would be reinforced by noticing that the morons on Wall Street make big decisions on the results. Only kneejerk rightwingers would detect a conspiracy.
I must admit, AOG, one great difficulty I have in understanding your views: how can someone who declares himself a Libertarian, who looks to praise freedom, can honestly look to such a case and tell me that... "the illegality is disputable"?
On what basis do you claim I looked at that specific case? I have great difficulty in understanding your views. Let's look at this case where policy "a hail of more than 100 bullets on two unsuspecting women delivering newspapers". Do you think that, as a libertarian, this should make me think arming police is clearly illegal? In both cases people were harmed, greviously, through mistaken identity by agents of the State. What, in your view, is the moral / philosophical distinction between these two cases?
I still don't think you understand the meaning of "dishonest", which also not a synonymn for "illegal". You can be dishonest without being illegal, and vice versa.
As for the Bush Administration, both of your articles claim that groups were watched. I saw no mention of them being "infiltrated" or "intimidated". Here is the lead "offense" in the article -
"In one instance, the report said, FBI officials falsely said an agent photographed antiwar demonstrators as part of a terrorism investigation"
That's the horror you think is worse than having your political rights taken away by the IRS? OK... you got me. That was truly a crime against humanity.
With regard to the economic data, I am not objecting to your skepticism or lack thereof, but your inconsistency on what constitutes valid data from the government. You said in writing, I provided an example, and then you said "no, that doesn't count either". As for motive, I have stated in multiple times already, just scroll back up a bit.
Most people would conclude that the first release of the numbers is not worth paying a lot of attention to
When most people actually start concluding that, then I will also. But the initial figures are trumpted by Old Media and the revisions ignored, and the bias of the change has become far more consistent than in previous administrations.
AOG,
---
On what basis do you claim I looked at that specific case? I have great difficulty in understanding your views.
---
The case I cited is certainly within my initial phrase scope ("sometimes of innocents that were never compensated"), to which you gave me your answer. IOW, you gave room to such practices even if they invert the "innocent until proven guilty" logic.
And your LAPD example really bears no resemblance to the one I cited. It is a willfull negligence X miatake scenario.
One was a by the second decision to pull the trigger under a stress situation that took seconds. The other a procedure, long in time, that purposefully leaves no room (or even care to) verify innocence. It by construction leads to error with no room for justice for the wronged person.
You only need to take a look on how both cases were given very different results when taken to US courts, to see how they have very little in common.
---
I saw no mention of them being "infiltrated" or "intimidated".
---
I do remember accusations along those lines back then, but I am not able to find the relevant links now. Anyway, you are free to not take my word.
---
[AOG objects my] inconsistency on what constitutes valid data from the government.
---
As I've remarked before, the problem of your example is to take as reference a guess document, not a final document. The expression "in ink" I've used means definitive affirmations, which a "guess" is not supposed to be.
As for inconsistency, please notice I've applied the same standard to Sebelius - as she contradicted herself about a prediction over the future, it is not a manipulation (she can't fake the future!), but a lack of seriousness, which are different sins.
'But the initial figures are trumpted by Old Media and the revisions ignored'
Except that the revisions are regularly reported.
So far as I know, only investment bankers and similar dimwits make decisions based on the preliminary figures. I make a fair amount of $ by counting on that.
Harry, a closet capitalist! Color me not in the least surprised. Naturally his profits are funneled to the deserving downtrodden or would be if Hawaii wasn't just so darn generous with benefits, there isn't a soul in need anywhere.
Just once, it would be nice if lefties weren't such predicable hypocrites.
Clovis;
I think the LAPD case was willful negligence, given the lack of threat before the shooting.
But maybe you'll find this a more appropriate case. If you have law enforcement, innocents will be harmed. That's the human condition.
I disagree with rendition as a policy because the risk/reward is too high, but that's very different from whether it is legal.
Mr. Eagar;
So far as I know, only investment bankers and similar dimwits make decisions based on the preliminary figures
Oh, I believe that. You've repeatedly demonstrated your obliviousness to what happens in general society.
Gosh, AOG.
You must be the worst Libertarian ever, meekly accepting forced anal probes as part of life... it must be a Freudian thing.
Time to play some catchup.
Harry: Those Walker staff emails are racist? Seriously?
By all means give us your super-duper, expanded definition of "racism", then make the case. Otherwise, and I'm going to to with that, this is just another example of progressives' reflexive reliance upon the thoughtcrime smear.
[Clovis:] As I understand it, most of those people who are not 1%'ers, and now need to pay a more expensive insurance, were in catastrophic plans that were actually not really much of an insurance. So now they need to spend a few hundred dollars more but will be really insured - and you want me to pity them for that?
The ACA mandated what insurance must cover. There is perhaps a fairness argument to be made, for example, that women shouldn't pay more for health insurance simply because they are women, therefore men must help fund the health services women consume. Unfortunately, the administration not only never made the argument, they blatantly lied that it didn't exist. (And the argument is harder to make than one might think: why should men pay more for life and car insurance?)
Just because the ACA says some health plans were "inadequate" doesn't mean consumers saw them that way. Although you wouldn't know it from the mindless reporting (that amounts to nothing more than re-tweeting administration talking points) in places like the NYT.
[Harry:] erp sneers at union workers …
Once again, perhaps you should stop saying what people said, instead of quoting them directly. I don't recall erp sneering at union workers, but I do remember plenty of times when she has sneered at union leadership.
There is a difference. And, speaking as a union worker, I join her in sneering at union leadership.
BTW, perhaps you might apologize to her for misrepresenting her comments.
[Harry:] Krugman has a column about fake horror stories
And here is an interesting column from the NYT's very own ombudsman regarding Krugman's veracity.
Ouch.
And if they continue to go bare, eventually they will get a whopper of a bill/or die in the street for lack of treatment.
If it's a whopper, I get to pay it, so there's the coercion I care about.
I get the impression you simply do not understand the concept of insurance. If it is a whopper, the rest of us pay for it, no matter the system.
Okay, point granted, people where dying in the street all the time before the ACA.
Wait. What? They weren't?
erp, you need to watch Republican video. The let-em-die chant already happened. Like you say, nothing escapes video any more.
Link please?
BTW, here are some handy tips on how to do that easily.
First, go to your system preferences for auto-correct. Since English never uses a period as the first character, I use that to create html tags. For instance .hr becomes [a href=""][/a] (replace the brackets with carats). Ctrl-l to select the URL, place the cursor between the quote marks, then Ctrl-v to insert the url. Then between the carats, type the text. Easy-peasy.
[Clovis:] It is amazing how your skepticism over politicians only extends to the ones in the other side of the aisle. There were no lack of false declarations by officials within Bush administration [regarding Iraqi WMD].
There is a difference between false and wrong, and because of that difference, there are some attendant consequences that progressives always ignore.
Okay, I'll take as read that the Bush administration blatantly lied about WMD — that they knew, in fact, that none existed, but manipulated intelligence and all manner of other things to create a conclusion they knew was contrary to reality.
Given that level of malfeasance, then what else should have happened? What dog did not bark?
Simple, but always overlooked. Had the Bush administration actually been lying, then it would have created and planted WMD to cover the lie.
But that didn't happen, despite being easy to do, which rather begs an explanation if the accusation is to stand.
The alternative, that the Bush administration was wrong , then the lack of WMD makes complete sense.
Of course, the other thing progressives always omit is the alternative.
In contrast, Obama has repeatedly told blatant lies about the ACA, and has relied upon toady "journalists" to flack for him. Of course, my accusation also carries consequences: that Obama is either using the ACA as a cynical means to a further goal, or is too stupid (along with Reid and Pelosi, respectively the king and queen of stupid) to have taken on board the ACA's inevitable consequences.
Given that the ACA looks like being a self-inflicted wound for the ages, I'm going with stupid all the way down. (Harry will be accusing me of being a racist in 3, 2, 1 …)
I would not describe as honest the use of torture practices and illegal renditions all over the world - sometimes of innocents that were never compensated, and I am not talking only about Guantanamo.
The discussion of "torture" is a heck of a lot more complicated than most people treat it.
Here are a couple things to consider. What definition of "torture" would both include what the Bush administration did, and exclude the accepted operation of the US justice system? In what way does it make sense that it is OK to kill people, but totally wrong to inflict upon them very unpleasant, but physically harmless, treatment?
If you are going to responding that "torture" can be used to make people say whatever you want them to, rethink what the point is, another thing progressives universally fail to ascertain.
(I do agree that El Masri was very badly handled, and the CIA should have gone to great lengths to compensate him.)
[Harry:] … a sideshow when really important and disastrous policies that killed tens of thousands of people were being made. I was contemplating different things then.
Was Bush dishonest? I think he truly believed a great deal of his nonsense. That will not bring all those people he killed back, so who cares?
Harry has lost sight of the fact that nearly all the people killed in Iraq were Muslims killing Muslims. Which makes this comment a twofer.
His disdain for Muslims is actually a good example of racism. Yet no matter how much he disdains Muslims, it is clear he disdains his fellow Americans even more.
Pretty much par for the progressive course.
[AOG:] I think the LAPD case was willful negligence, given the lack of threat before the shooting.
I'll have to agree with Clovis on this one: there was an extremely high threat before the shooting; the LAPD officers were reacting to mistaken identity.
'Harry has lost sight of the fact that nearly all the people killed in Iraq were Muslims killing Muslims.'
No, I haven't. I think we should count them anyway.
'Wait. What? They weren't?'
Actually, they were. The mortality tables demonstrate it.
You, in fact, have alluded to the fact several times; perhaps you have forgotten what you said happens when you take African-Americans out of the international league tables?
'Harry: Those Walker staff emails are racist? Seriously? '
Yeah, srsly. Thought experiment: You are at a business gathering of people you do not know especially well, but which includes people of different skin tones. Some you hpe to convert into customers. You are the emcee. Do you warm up the crowd with those jokes?
If you guys are going to continue to claim that Obamacare was trotted out on a platform of untruths, I wish you would use that Google-thingy to show where you were equally stringent about Incurious George's promise that his war on Iraq would pay for itself.
erp, as I have said many times, I am a New Dealer. I understand you do not know what the New Deal was or what a socialist is, but New Dealers were capitalists. We saved capitalism from fascism when it was unable to save itself.
Skipper, I have no doubt there's a video extant with people chanting (what?) in an area festooned with tea party slogans and it's just about as genuine as the "Grecian Columns" Harry's boy king stood in front of when he gave his coronation speech.
So, I am correct. You are taking advantage of those weaker than yourself and bilking them for your own gain. I wouldn't care except it's us taxpayers you're ripping off to the tune of so many gazillions, even Frankie and Friends would be impressed.
You new dealers didn't save capitalism, but you did resurrect fascism aka crony capitalism from the dead and wouldn't your heroes be impressed at how adroitly the takeover was handled. Put an arrogant poseur with enhanced melanin in the White House and then dance around screeching racism when there is any criticism of the wholesale takeover of our freedom but don't despair, you were right about one thing, I don't know the difference between new dealers, fascists and socialists ... because there isn't any
Here ya go. Clever how they got a Ron Paul look-alike to play the role of heartless conservative.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PepQF7G-It0
Harry,
You see, first they deny the video exists. Now they can see it, you'll just see Erp shouting let-em-die too.
Skipper,
---
[Clovis wrongly interpreted] There were no lack of false declarations by officials within Bush administration [regarding Iraqi WMD].
[Skipper] There is a difference between false and wrong, and because of that difference, there are some attendant consequences that progressives always ignore.
---
No, Skipper, that phrase was not about Iraqi WMD, which I am done fighting over here. It was about the whole period of Bush's mandate.
BTW, your argument up there is not tight: the admnistration may very well have been dishonest *and* incompetent to the point of not covering well their own lies. If they were incompetent enough to make mistakes as the El Masri blunder (and other countless ones), why do you think I am going to think higher of them in other situations?
Also, I have hard doubts about your capacity of being skeptical enough on anything involving your armed forces and anti-terrorism apparatus. It is almost impossible to overcome intrinsic bias from someone involed with it his whole life.
---
The discussion of "torture" is a heck of a lot more complicated than most people treat it.
---
I agree, and think you repeated the lack of rigour yourself.
You frame the question again on the limits of torture and pressure on a subject.
The picture where you have a terrorist and philosophy over what is or not humane to do with him to extract information, which is what you have in mind above, is the firt gross simplification people make in such discussions.
In real life, where the El Masri case above is far from being the exception, what you have is incomplete information all over the process, to begin with if the guy at your hand is in any way connected to anything you want at all.
You can frame it as a game theory scenario: you want to maximize information both on the subject and what he knows about. He wants to minimize his suffering and, only if he is a terrorist (which you may not know!), protect the information he has. As this is *not a zero-sum game* (i.e. to minimize his suffering is not the same as to want to minimize the information you obtain), the game can many times lead to counter-productive solutions.
If the guy is innocent, the above scenario will invariably lead to him confessing he killed his mother, if that's what he *thinks* you want to know.
If the guy is in deed a terrorist, the game gets more complicated, with results where you maximize your information or jumbles it all being possible.
All in all, it is hardly a worthwhile game most of the time - certainly a useless one when applied in mass and with little discrimination.
Now, that all said, I must state that there is a question of principles here. AOG looks to think that if some semi-secret law passed by congress authorizes such renditions, it is legal. That's why I gave him the Nazi argument, which he looks to not have get. A civilized people would recognize that some fundamental rights should not be bound to the whim of some craven lawmakers. They would also realize that to focus only in what they call it "legal", ignoring what is legal to other countries and jurisdiction, is the first step to make more enemies than friends.
From erp:
Whoops, sorry I'm using my alter-ego identity by mistake.
___
Clovis, there's a whole new magic now that can change reality to whatever the propagandists would like it to be.
In earlier times, it took a little longer to rewrite history, now with editing and photoshopping, it's instantaneous.
I'm curious, since there's no way I'm watching any videos that aren't about kittens, exactly who is that you think I want to die?
Clovis;
AOG looks to think that if some semi-secret law passed by congress authorizes such renditions, it is legal.
No.
You mixed legality, human error, dishonesty, and morality together in a such a mish mash that I can't straighten it out. It is that I do not "get", but I don't think the problem is on this end.
I did find this amusingly ironic - A civilized people would recognize that some fundamental rights should not be bound to the whim of some craven lawmakers
That is precisely my argument against democracy, which you found bogus.
Erp,
---
exactly who is that you think I want to die?
---
I guess anyone,or anything, except kittens.
AOG,
---
I did find this amusingly ironic - A civilized people would recognize that some fundamental rights should not be bound to the whim of some craven lawmakers
That is precisely my argument against democracy, which you found bogus.
---
Except that is probably one of the few things you believe that I do not find to be bogus, but agree with.
[Harry:] If you guys are going to continue to claim that Obamacare was trotted out on a platform of untruths, I wish you would use that Google-thingy to show where you were equally stringent about Incurious George's promise that his war on Iraq would pay for itself.
You do love yourself some of that hot non sequitur action, don't you?
I just did, and was completely un-amazed at how amazed I was at how amazingly baseless your assertion is. And, for about the fiftieth time over the last month or so, finding myself deeply wishing that you would do like the rest of us here: provide the link, use the direct quote.
However, you are like all progressives: language only means what you say it means. Bush didn't say that. The Bush administration didn't say that. Yet progressives can take what the Bush administration did say, and, within the space of a para-break, turn it into something entirely different.
Dowd, Fisk, Krugman, et al: not one of you can see beyond your narrative.
[Clovis:]No, Skipper, that phrase was not about Iraqi WMD, which I am done fighting over here.
Apologies; playing two-week catchup was bound to not go completely well.
It was about the whole period of Bush's mandate.
Please provide specifics — really. There is a direct, specific assertion in play that Obama and the Democratic leadership blatantly lied about material, known, facts in order to pass the ACA, and continued to lie about them until reality came barging into the room. Incurious Harry's (my new term for the "journalism" "profession") were either too ideologically committed, or negligent, or plain stupid to exercise anything remotely approximating due diligence.
If any corporation had done such things, its entire board would be in jail for grotesque fraud.
Alternatively, Obama is too credulous and bereft of intellectual horsepower to suss the ACA's deductive consequences.
In return, we are somehow supposed to excuse all of that because Bush said things he didn't say, or on account of non-specific whatever.
BTW, your argument up there is not tight: the administration may very well have been dishonest *and* incompetent to the point of not covering well their own lies.
No, it isn't, not even close, and bringing up an unrelated incident in a separate realm doesn't help your argument any.
Once again: Take as read that the Bush administration knew the WMD assertions were false, yet successfully sold the lie. That means they had to buffalo the entire intelligence community, foreign intelligence services, Congress, and the UN. Yet, having had the competence to do all those things, it was too incompetent to accomplish the most obvious, the easiest, and the most necessary, in terms of their political success, step of all.
That amounts to an extraordinary claim. It demands that two completely opposite things be true at the same time. It is hard to tell which is most mystifying. Reaching that conclusion without question, or failing to consider the obvious in the first place.
[Clovis:]Also, I have hard doubts about your capacity of being skeptical enough on anything involving your armed forces and anti-terrorism apparatus. It is almost impossible to overcome intrinsic bias from someone involved with it his whole life.
Then I am sure you will find, and analyze, and invalidate any such bias.
But unless you can, then perhaps my considerable expertise in this area is not completely worthless.
The picture where you have a terrorist and philosophy over what is or not humane to do with him to extract information, which is what you have in mind above, is the first gross simplification people make in such discussions.
In real life, where the El Masri case above is far from being the exception, what you have is incomplete information all over the process, to begin with if the guy at your hand is in any way connected to anything you want at all.
Islamists are conducting asymmetrical warfare; in so doing, they not only routinely, but nearly exclusively, violate every law of war. That sort of thing is bound to leave marks; El Masri was one of them.
I am sure you will find plenty of examples of my bias and oversimplification here.
If the guy is innocent, the above scenario will invariably lead to him confessing he killed his mother, if that's what he *thinks* you want to know.
This is where you go off the rails. The goal of coercion, within the context of war, is to obtain actionable and extendable information.
AOG noted that the Bush administration made an explicit effort to define for policy makers and commanders what was allowed, and prohibited. Contrast that with the Obama administration.
[Hey Skipper:] 'Harry: Those Walker staff emails are racist? Seriously? '
[Harry:] Yeah, srsly. Thought experiment: You are at a business gathering of people you do not know especially well, but which includes people of different skin tones. Some you hpe to convert into customers. You are the emcee. Do you warm up the crowd with those jokes?
Thought experiment: By all means give us your super-duper, expanded definition of "racism", then make the case. Otherwise, and I'm going to to with that, this is just another example of progressives' reflexive reliance upon the thoughtcrime smear.
Watch what happened when do-gooders interfered with Mother Nature.
The lesson to be learned here is lost on lefty moonbats as the title of the video clearly shows. The breathless narrator, the original moonbat himself, credits the wolf as making wonderful changes, when in fact, the return of wolf merely returned the habitat to its natural balance before the compassionates decided to take the big bad wolf* out of the mix.
In fact, the devasted landscape looks very much like Detroit.
*read capitalism
I didn't see any kittens in that video, so I guess erp's refusal to follow my link is just another example of her refusal to accept evidence.
Her comment is none-too-coherent, but I think she thinks that the wolves disappeared from Yellowstone in the first place because vegans (or something) were protecting the elk-babies, or ???? Hard to say what point was being attempted.
FTA: The original wild wolves in Yellowstone were deliberately killed by the federal government during the period when it was government policy to exterminate the wolf everywhere, even inside national parks.
My comment was incoherent to you Harry, because it went against what is evident to all who can see that your side's meddling has caused not only our economy and way of life to tank, but it even extended into the wilds, so that the dessicated landscape in Yellowstone came to resemble same in Detroit
... and both happened for the same reason. Meddling nannystaters running amok.
[Harry:] If you guys are going to continue to claim that Obamacare was trotted out on a platform of untruths
Is there anyone besides Mr. Eagar who disputes that? Even gave it the "Lie of the Year" award. It's a perfect example of what I meant by Eagar's obliviousness.
Skipper,
---
[Clovis on lies during Bush admn.] It was about the whole period of Bush's mandate.
Please provide specifics — really.
---
No, it is the other way around: I asked AOG for his take on anything he could possibly describe as wrong happening during Bush's administration. I wanted to compare his skepticism then with now. You are well invited to give your take too.
---
[Skipper on Bush and Iraqi/WMD] That amounts to an extraordinary claim.
---
Not necessarily, if you believe that Bush's team was extraordinarily stupid.
---
I am sure you will find plenty of examples of my bias and oversimplification here.
---
And I did find. But many of them where first found by a few of your commentators, most notably one named Gaw. You did not look to learn much from his input back then, why should I give mine? You can start with your notion that terrorism is a "War", pass through your other wrong notion I've pointed out before (that torture and renditions are applied only to people you are sure of being terrorists), and you may find someday how biased you are.
---
This is where you go off the rails. The goal of coercion, within the context of war, is to obtain actionable and extendable information.
---
Yes, in the context of real war, it may well be. In the context of eternal state of vigilance by the Big Brother, it must take a lot of faith to believe so. I mean the kind of faith that an ardent communist must have had in Soviet times.
---
AOG noted that the Bush administration made an explicit effort to define for policy makers and commanders what was allowed, and prohibited. Contrast that with the Obama administration.
---
Forgive me if I give you the impression that my complaint on US behavior over that is limited to Bush's period. It is not: you guys keep doing very bad on that front. To make things worse, you now couldn't care less for your own Constitution, since Predators now kill your own too, including innocent ones.
I also do not want to give any impression I am criticizing from higher ground. Very probably more human rights violations go unnoticed in my own country in a few days than you guys practice in months. It is just that, in a past that gets ever more distant, we used to look for you guys as role models. But lately the examples have been on what not to do. My main feeling here is disappointment.
I asked AOG for his take on anything he could possibly describe as wrong happening during Bush's administration
No. You asked for examples of dishonest actions. Again, "wrong", "dishonest", and "illegal" are distinct concepts.
AOG,
You are right, though I could have asked for "wrong" instead of "dishonest" anyway. Have you anything to add on the "wrong" side?
I must say that, to someone so skeptical on anythiong govt. related, I am impressed how your list came up short until now.
Forgive me if I give you the impression that my complaint on US behavior over that is limited to Bush's period
You're still doing it. As far as I can tell, your question arises from your need to bash Bush, and you're surprised only because I am not as partisan as you in that regard, instead looking at facts. I decline to participate in your bashing effort, because it's about your need to view Bush as the worst in all categories.
But if you want something I "possibly describe as wrong happening during Bush's administration" I will start with flagrantly wrong reporting on Hurricane Katrina, the Democratic Party wining control of Congress, the rail-roading of Scooter Libby, and the character assassination of Senatorial candidate Jack Ryan.
AOG,
I asked for errors in Bush term by anyone on his administration, not by himself. I understand such things can happen even to the best of govts., so no, it is not a need to bash Bush.
But your answer above clearly shows who is the partisan here, since you can only blame the other side. Anyway, I truly had no hopes you could elevate yourself above the mundane and look for the big picture.
When it comes to governance, it is well to recall Talleyrand's comment on the murder of the Duc d'Enghien:
'It was worse than a crime, it was a mistake.'
Guy's list of failures of the Bush administration is remarkably free of any mention of losing two wars. Of its failure, once the wars had begun, to make serious efforts to provide protection for the soldiers, etc. etc.
If the worst mistake a national leader can make is to get people killed to no purpose -- and that's my standard -- then Bush now rivals Wilson for worst American leader ever.
Mr. Eagar;
I always suspected you never actually read my comments. Even Clovis figured out that not one of those was done by the Bush Administration, but you completely missed it.
Clovis;
Yes, clearly it can only be hardcore partisanship that causes me to not do your opposition research for you. And clearly it's not partisanship to blame Bush but be unable to come up with any specific examples. "He's just a bad President! You figure out why!".
AOG,
No, I do not need nor asked for you to do any research for me.
I basically asked for your critical take of the Federal Govt. of the USA during the period 2001-2008.
You look to be unable to do so. In stark contrast to your critical positions over the present administration. Yet, for some reason, you accuse me of being the partisan one, forgetting I have not even motive to be so. I do not vote in your country, remember?
In fact, historically, Republican administrations have been more beneficial to Brazil's interests.
[Clovis:] No, it is the other way around: I asked AOG for his take on anything he could possibly describe as wrong happening during Bush's administration. I wanted to compare his skepticism then with now. You are well invited to give your take too.
Hurricane Katrina. Bush appointed a lackey as FEMA director who couldn't be bothered to review and critique hurricane response plans for major metropolitan areas. While the primary responsibility wasn't FEMA's, it did, and he should have used, FEMA's power to fix blatantly bogus planning.
Fiscal incontinence. During his presidency, spending significantly outstripped revenue.
Failure to curb the Community Reinvestment Act.
Iraq War. Post-invasion planning was too affected by a post-modern mindset with regard to religion, and the peaceful collapse of socialism in East Europe.
He said "nuquelar" instead of "nuclear". Oddly, this criticism was made by people who undoubtedly say "jewlry" instead of "jewelry".
I just read the wikipedia entry on George Bush. Oddly, there isn't a heck of a lot "wrong" there; certainly nothing to compare to, oh, IRS abuses, the grotesque lies surrounding the ACA, drawing lines in the sand, or Obama's over all feckless foreign policy.
[Skipper on Bush and Iraqi/WMD] That amounts to an extraordinary claim.
---
Not necessarily, if you believe that Bush's team was extraordinarily stupid.
How could such an extraordinarily stupid team have so thoroughly hoodwinked everyone? Either they weren't that stupid, or they weren't lying. Can't have it both ways, yet that is precisely how the left insists on having it.
There are a couple benefits to the Obama presidency. One of them, pertinent, here, is exposing the rampant bias and hypocrisy of the left. There is probably no way of getting the left to take that on board, but it is getting increasingly apparent to everyone else.
And I did find. But many of them where first found by a few of your commentators, most notably one named Gaw. You did not look to learn much from his input back then, why should I give mine?
Because Gaw (with whom I have corresponded fairly often, and respect) completely failed to address the argument, that's why. Instead, he went straight for a slippery-slope hypothetical that had nothing to do with the situation at hand. Unfortunately, slippery slope arguments are so weak as to be almost worthless: they rely solely upon things that are yet to happen, and often find refutation on things that haven't yet happened. Ultimately, he failed to address even one of the questions which his question begged.
Ultimately, he (and all the others I cited) were stating a conclusion without going to the bother of making an argument.
War, in all its manifestations, is an extremely unpleasant subject to ponder in detail. Therefore, most people, like Gaw, and you, don't. That's not my fault. And it also isn't my fault you apparently didn't bother to read my responses to Gaw, either.
[Clovis:] It is not: you guys keep doing very bad on that front. To make things worse, you now couldn't care less for your own Constitution, since Predators now kill your own too, including innocent ones.
That makes no sense — and I'm pretty certain I've brought this up before. The Constitution and war exist in entirely different realms. The Predators are targeting people who by any definition even remotely correlated with reality are enemy combatants. Your trivialization of these ineradicable points would provide infinite sanctuary to those who put themselves beyond the justice system that is part and parcel of the Constitution you invoke on there behalf.
Even more perplexing is your moral offense at the US for the consequences of others not just completely ignoring, but actively traducing, the laws of war.
Skipper,
First, thank you for your honest assessment of Bush's period.
---
How could such an extraordinarily stupid team have so thoroughly hoodwinked everyone?
---
Can you tell me who have they hoodwinked? Really, out of your country few people bought it. When I say they were stupid, I mean it more as "brute" than "dumb": they forced their way into Iraq and could not care less for consistency. They firmly believed Might Makes Right, so they were right regardless anything else.
---
Because Gaw [...] completely failed to address the argument, that's why. Instead, he went straight for a slippery-slope hypothetical that had nothing to do with the situation at hand.
---
Oh, but time is the lord of irony. Go back there and read Gaw's "slippery-slope hypothetical that had nothing to do with the situation at hand" again. Pay attention to his final inference on possible use on drug cartels, following that slippery slope. Then read this:
http://news.yahoo.com/drone-phone-taps-used-hunt-mexico-capo-003740817.html
Or this:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/12/time_to_use_drones_in_mexico.html
Gaw did address your arguments and more, you just did not pay attention to.
---
And it also isn't my fault you apparently didn't bother to read my responses to Gaw, either.
---
I did read yours. I've read them all, I do my homework.
If you care to notice, I did not declare you wrong in respect to war. All your points are indeed pertinent in some contexts.
What I've said is that terrorism is not War. You did not even care to counter that point, so brainwashed you are to believe it is.
---
The Predators are targeting people who by any definition even remotely correlated with reality are enemy combatants.
---
Enemy combatants? That's indeed a good example of newspeak. Orwell would be proud of himself, that was a visionary guy indeed.
---
Your trivialization of these ineradicable points would provide infinite sanctuary to those who put themselves beyond the justice system that is part and parcel of the Constitution you invoke on there behalf.
---
Really?
Please lecture me then on how come Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski were different from Anwar al-Awlaki. The first two were sentenced guilty in lawful courts, and they for sure killed lots of people. al-Awlaki, on the other hand... who knows? Did he kill anyone? Not even of that he was accused. I certainly do not know if he is guilty of anything at all, no one was ever given the chance to check that in lawful court procedures, had we?
Yet, al-Awlaki was an "enemy combatant", while the other two were just a bunch of, you know, almost normal criminals - well, they at least were pretty white and had not Muslim sounding name, right?
Also, this very dangerous teenager, who spent a fair amount of time watching dangerous and subversive things as "The Simpsons", was a perfect example of someone "actively traducing the laws of war":
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/the-drone-that-killed-my-grandson.html?_r=0
Had the wrong name, right? Surely deserved to die with no trial. What, they say it was a mistake? Hmm, another mistake... so many misterious mistakes. It is the "human condition" I guess, or so AOG tells me.
What is pretty interesting about the "human condition", though, is how people compartmentalize their skepticism in little boxes. I am told countless times here how Obama is lying through his teeth. That Eric Holder is shamefully mangling the Laws. That you can not trust government - it never does anything right, only makes it worse. Yet, I see the very same people blindly trusting semi-secret white memos with flamboyant words to explain why you must surrender to all those Government Bureacrats and Politicians your ultimate right: your own life.
Please Skipper, go take a look here, follow the links, and show time and again how so much hopeless biased you are to believe this trash:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeted_killing#Legality
Ops, sorry, the last link was supposed to be this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle#Legality
(The first I gave is not focused on the US Constitution case only).
One quote:
---
Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine that the target poses “an imminent threat of violent attack.”
---
From the same guy who also decided that the administration can freely chosse which laws to follow. And that told his State prsecutors colleagues they should only work on the cases they see fit.
Sure, I should trust that guy with my life. Whatever he says.
Clovis;
Had the wrong name, right? Surely deserved to die with no trial. What, they say it was a mistake?
I still fail to understand what your actual point with these examples is, other than "If policy A results in accidental deaths by the government, it an illegal/immoral/dishonest policy and should be stopped".
My question to you is, do you apply the same view to domestic law enforcement? If not, why not?
I also don't see where you get the idea that I trust any of these people, other than because I disagree with your opinion. It's not actually a dichotomy between "agree with Clovis" and "trust government".
AOG,
---
I still fail to understand what your actual point with these examples is, other than "If policy A results in accidental deaths by the government, it an illegal/immoral/dishonest policy and should be stopped".
---
So let me state it clearly: If policy A, which results in deaths, is a black box where there is no way for the public to scrutinize its process, it is indeed illegal/immoral/dishonest and should be stopped.
There is no way to externally differentiate between accidental deaths and malicious ones in such programs. Anyone can be a target. It is a slippery slope with foreseable results given our "human condition" (to use your words) and history. Just give it time and you'll see.
There is another, unrelated point, on what limits we accept on "accidents" - drones have exceeded the limits I'd be comfortable with by far.
---
My question to you is, do you apply the same view to domestic law enforcement? If not, why not?
---
Yes, I do.
---
I also don't see where you get the idea that I trust any of these people [...]
---
I did not see you objecting any of those policies. Maybe you disagree with them in silence, I don't know. One way or another, you end up trusting them in your actions (or in the lack of it), if not in your mind.
'Obama's over all feckless foreign policy.'
Now that's funny, since just this week all the rightwing chickenhawks are screaming about how Obama's feckless policy did not prevent Russia from invading (sort of) Ukraine; while the 'hawks seem to have forgotten to cite how Bush's robust policy prevented Russia from invading Georgia . . .
Oh, yeah, they got that backwards, didn't they?
I think Guy's little joke was not quite as funny as he thinks. It's true, I did not spot those as fakes but I thought they were probably more imaginary rightwing talking points I had never heard about like the takeover of the ranchers by the Northern band of the Shoshone.
What I did not notice was any acknowledgment of the disasters of Bush. Even a Tea Party fanatic might have mentioned his failure to raise taxes in wartime, for example.
[Clovis:] Can you tell me who have they hoodwinked?
Congress. A dozen or so other countries. Among others.
When I say they were stupid, I mean it more as "brute" than "dumb": they forced their way into Iraq and could not care less for consistency.
I'm wondering how much you care for consistency. As I have posted elsewhere, and I think you have read, there was a very strong strategic case for getting rid of Saddam — that, not might, is what makes right. So far as I can remember, you have never addressed the status quo ante, nor have you spent even a syllable discussing alternative courses of action and their potential costs.
In this, you are not alone. I have read fairly widely in this area, and I don't recall any progressives — Harry is a perfect example here — proposing and justifying a viable alternative course of action.
Their, and your, objections amount to nothing more than a nullity. In the particular case of WMD, you can't even bring yourself to entertain a theory consistent with history, instead insisting upon a mutually contradictory narrative: an administration clever enough to hoodwink a whole bunch of people, yet too stupid to even try to do both the easy and obvious.
Further, by relentlessly focusing on WMD, you let yourself off the far sharper hook of considering all the other reasons Saddam presented very serious problems, nor do you (as with all other progressives) wonder, even for a moment, what the world might look like if Saddam was still in power.
Oh, but time is the lord of irony. Go back there and read Gaw's "slippery-slope hypothetical that had nothing to do with the situation at hand" again. Pay attention to his final inference on possible use on drug cartels, following that slippery slope.
Yet neither of those come even close to justifying his "slippery slope". In both you have made the clear mistake of confusing ends with means. In the first case, the end was to position a cell phone receiver close enough to ascertain whether the suspect was present. It the means was a drone, as opposed to, say, a receiver covertly planted in the building, is irrelevant. Similarly with the border link. Drones would do nothing more than ground based cameras, or, for that matter, existing heliostat balloons: surveillance. Gaw's hypothetical had nothing to do with surveillance.
Gaw did address your arguments and more, you just did not pay attention to.
No, he didn't.
Of course, you could prove me wrong by taking each of my main points and quoting Gaw as to how he addressed them. He, like you, is all conclusion and no argument.
Enemy combatants? That's indeed a good example of newspeak. Orwell would be proud of himself, that was a visionary guy indeed.
Ignoring for citizenship for a second, were they legitimate targets? Now, throw citizenship back in. How are they suddenly not valid targets? (BTW, your wikipedia link gave several very good justifications for why this is outside the scope of constitutional law.)
Please lecture me then on how come Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski were different from Anwar al-Awlaki. The first two were sentenced guilty in lawful courts, and they for sure killed lots of people. al-Awlaki, on the other hand... who knows?
Here is a one word lecture: geography.
A little more extensively, al-Awlaki could have surrendered to US authorities, and received a trial. McVeigh and Kaczynski didn't surrender, they were caught flat-footed. Had they chosen to resist arrest, you might very well not have been able to use them as examples.
Al-Awlaki actively recruited Islamists. He knew three of the 9/11 hijackers, and corresponded with Maj. Hasan, and was associated with the panty bomber.
Sounds like a legitimate target to me.
Mr. Eagar;
I didn't think it was actually funny until you responded, and now I think it's hilarious. For instance, "the Democratic Party winning control of Congress", which you read as one of some set of "imaginary rightwing talking points I had never heard about". There you have it, Eagar did not hear about the Democratic Party gaining control of Congress during the Bush years. Now that, sir, is funny. But, if you actually go back and look at election results, it turns out to be true! Seriously, check it out, it really happened.
Clovis;
Ah. Why not just state these things straight out? The problem is, it is difficult to see how a government could carry out any covert activities at all under that restriction. There are serious people who claim that is an acceptable price for better governance - is that your view?
I did not see you objecting any of those policies
You mean for instance when I wrote "I disagree with rendition as a policy because the risk/reward is too high" earlier in this string?
Not to mention that "those policies" is rather vague. Given your frequent misquoting and misrepresentations of what I write, I much prefer for you to describe a specific policy and discuss that, rather than vague and unspecified sets of things. You'll note that in contrast when I object to an Obama policy, I point out the specific policy, provide a link, and state clearly why I object to that policy. I don't make you drag it out of me over a dozen comments or so.
[Harry:] If the worst mistake a national leader can make is to get people killed to no purpose -- and that's my standard -- then Bush now rivals Wilson for worst American leader ever.
Peleliu.
Skipper;
Speaking of being hoodwinked, Here is Joe Wilson writing just before the invasion and confirming that he believed that the Ba'athist regime had WMD.
"There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him.
And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that."
This is the same Joe Wilson who is the most frequently cited "debunker" of those claims, the Joe Wilson of the Niger trip and the Plame brouhaha.
Skipper,
---
[Hoodwinked by Bush] Congress. A dozen or so other countries. Among others.
---
My read is that Congress, and most of American people, were either equally happy with Might Makes Right or too scared to use reason.
In fact, this whole conversation (Iraq war, torture, renditions, drone killings) is all about Might Makes Right. It's been interesting how you guys can not be honest about it, given your pseudo-Libertarin tendencies, hence keep circling the question.
---
So far as I can remember, you have never addressed the status quo ante, nor have you spent even a syllable discussing alternative courses of action and their potential costs.
---
It is not true, I have countered your argument multiple times, you keep not taking it on board. Your argument is in fact a typical example of an impossible argument masked by a facade of reason.
Ultimately, you argue that we should have invaded Iraq because, to the contrary, there was a chance things would go very bad in future. Then, you condemn everyone who disagrees for his inability to project the future in case Saddam remained.
See, as no one can foresee the future, you declare a win. Really, it is impossible to argue with that.
---
[On drones and drug cartels] Yet neither of those come even close to justifying his "slippery slope". In both you have made the clear mistake of confusing ends with means.
---
Yes, the drones did not fire somebody - yet. Although you look to have ignored the Colombian case in the second link, were assassination was practiced using US help and technology.
Wait just a little bit more and we'll see. Not that it makes any difference, by then you'll be used to the idea enough to welcome it.
---
Of course, you could prove me wrong by taking each of my main points and quoting Gaw as to how he addressed them.
---
I already did by pointing out that terrorism is not war, and *all* your points to Gaw only make sense assuming so.
---
Ignoring for citizenship for a second, were they legitimate targets?
---
I don't know, netiher do you, and that's the whole point.
Every one of that killings depends on classified information that can be either wrong or entirely made up. And we'll never know the difference.
Were your Founding Fathers not dead, I truly believe they'd have a heart attack and die by now, watching what a mockery has been done of their ideals.
---
Al-Awlaki actively recruited Islamists. He knew three of the 9/11 hijackers, and corresponded with Maj. Hasan, and was associated with the panty bomber.
Sounds like a legitimate target to me.
---
At least in a lawful court he could be condemned to death by clear and public evidence, not hearsay. That, to me, makes a lot of difference.
AOG,
---
Ah. Why not just state these things straight out?
---
I thought it was pretty obvious, but you also could have asked.
My main point when describing the El Masri case was how there was no accountability and a complete disregard for the wronged innocent person, all by *default*, not by error. Any other wronged person in future will keep being treated equally. A system built for that is wrong/immoral/dishonest by construction. So how was not my point clear?
---
The problem is, it is difficult to see how a government could carry out any covert activities at all under that restriction. There are serious people who claim that is an acceptable price for better governance - is that your view?
---
I said "If policy A, which results in deaths, is a black box...", which means that I am against any covert operation with assassination as it means in civil contexts (not in war context, and I alerady made clear I do not buy terrorism as war).
Of course govts. will keep carrying on covert operations for intel, political and economic objectives. But when they practice it for assassination, they are no longer governments, they are just one more mafia organization. Should we all be reduced to be playing thug wars? My view of the social contract is quite different.
AOG,
---
Speaking of being hoodwinked, Here is Joe Wilson writing just before the invasion and confirming that he believed that the Ba'athist regime had WMD.
---
You are being very disingenuous on that one.
It is clear he is thinking about chemical weapons, which really no one knew if Saddam had or not in plenty by then.
But the WMD accusations that were played most strongly then were nuclear related. And those were the ones Wilson expressed skepticism about, hence the Plame debacle.
Really, a lot of people on the right can be honest nowadays about the WMD deception of the Bush team. Take this one published yesterday, for example:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/03/06/monster-putin-could-ukraine-standoff-have-been-avoided-by-obama/
Only the die-hard nuts keep denying it.
Clovis;
I said "If policy A, which results in deaths, is a black box..."
But your example of this was the El Masri case, which did not result in death. You think that statement was obvious from an example to which it doesn't apply? You can't even keep it straight yourself, stating two completely different things in your last response (accountability vs. fatalities). So, yeah, not clear at all.
Let's also note that you seem (who can tell?) to be including policies that result in accidental deaths, which is very likely to happen with any significant set of active covert operations.
It is clear he is thinking about chemical weapons [...] the WMD accusations that were played most strongly then were nuclear related.
My read is that when the Bush Administration talked about WMD, they meant the standard and official definition, which includes chemical weapons. It was an invention of the pro-Ba'athist crowd that it was all about nuclear weapons, just like it was an invention of theirs that WMD was the primary justification for the invasion. Even you admit, here, that it wasn't all about nuclear weapons - you claim is that that was only the foremost point.
AOG,
Now you are calling me a pro-Ba'athist?
That too low level coming from you. I am out of this discussion.
Clovis;
No. But that's kind of an amusing snit coming from some one who doesn't hesitate to compare me to Nazis.
AOG,
When I did so, I recognized the excess and apologized.
I am not really offended by the comparison - it is non-sense - but it shows you are unwilling to have an adult conversation. Why should I bother then?
'I don't recall any progressives — Harry is a perfect example here — proposing and justifying a viable alternative course of action.'
Oh, but I did. I had and have no objection to bumping off mass murderers, and I proposed several alternative approaches.
The simplest, and I repeated it several times so I am surprised you have not remembered it, was to arm the Kurds and let them do it.
But I had other ideas too.
'There is no way to externally differentiate between accidental deaths and malicious ones in such programs. Anyone can be a target. It is a slippery slope with foreseable results given our "human condition" (to use your words) and history. Just give it time and you'll see.'
Aye, there's the rub.
When, eg, the US dismantle government in Afghanistan and the violence that followed included a lot of personal score-settling under the guise of political operations, it was not hard for 'sophisticated' Americans to recognize it and (to the more sensitive ones) write it off to eggs-will-be-broken-to-get-omelets account); but somehow they do not see themselves as operating under the same motivations.
I have a complicated view of the current situation: the simplest part of it is that if it is right to kill non-Americans with a drone for X, then what could possibly protect Americans also doing X?
'Peleliu.'
Now that is an amazing obtuse comment coming from a military man. As Wellington about warfare, 'After all some things must be left to chance.'
But if you want to argue along that line, you'd make a better case if you condemned the political leadership for not firing MacArthur.
Not to mention that the US policy of civilian command has -- at least from Lincoln to Roosevelt -- been to have the C-in-C set the strategic goals and then let the soldiers fight the way their professionalism suggests.
One of the gravest charges that we can lay against the rightwingers is that they abandoned that wise approach, and the Democrats have not resisted.
It is a strange thing that the biggest memorial to an American general is to the worst one.
'My read is that when the Bush Administration talked about WMD, they meant the standard and official definition, which includes chemical weapons. It was an invention of the pro-Ba'athist crowd that it was all about nuclear weapons, just like it was an invention of theirs that WMD was the primary justification for the invasion. Even you admit, here, that it wasn't all about nuclear weapons - you claim is that that was only the foremost point.'
There's an interesting mixture of selective memory and forgetting in that paragraph.
For sure the Incurious Georgites were thinking of chemical weapons, or, faute de mieux, were ready to accept them if nothing worse turned up. Remember how they creamed in their panties when the 2 CW decontamination vans were found?
But that incident lays to rest the claim that WMD was not the reason for the invasion.
Harry,
---
[...] if it is right to kill non-Americans with a drone for X, then what could possibly protect Americans also doing X?
---
Short answer: in the long run, nothing.
It won't surprise anyone that I find it non-sense to differentiate nationality when pondering the life of anyone. But I am taking aside here my personal opinion, trying to look things through the typical American point of view.
I think the corruption brought to the soul by the trivialization of life can not be contained by passports. The killing of those "cavemen" (as many think of the Afghans and Pakistanis dying by drones), easily dismissed by the greater American society, ultimately will also lead to the same sin being inflicted upon themselves.
[Clovis:] It is not true, I have countered your argument multiple times, you keep not taking it on board. Your argument is in fact a typical example of an impossible argument masked by a facade of reason.
My argument is that the situation vis a vis Iraq had reached a point where the existing containment policy could no longer hold, and that the decision to invade Iraq was, given the options on offer, strategically defendable.
My condemnation isn't disagreement per se, but rather vacuous disagreement. I don't recall seeing an even remotely reasoned argument that the sanctions regime could have continued indefinitely. I don't recall seeing, whether from you or the NYT's international editor, a remotely reasoned argument for an alternative course of action. Instead, you (in the collective sense) take the intellectually facile position of listing the litany of bad consequences without ever burdening yourselves with considering the consequences of the course of action you never articulated. It is the easiest thing in the world to reminisce on the difficulties of the road taken, far harder with the road foregone.
But that is no excuse to not even try.
If I have missed where you have articulated the case for continuing sanctions, or, what to do instead, then I apologize, and would appreciate your cutting and pasting what I have either missed or forgotten.
I already did by pointing out that terrorism is not war, and *all* your points to Gaw only make sense assuming so.
You have fallen into the gaping PC trap we have constructed for ourselves since 9/11. Because we will not call it for what it is, a war in Islamism, then we use "terrorism" as a synecdoche. The tactic Islamists use to pursue their war aims is terrorism. If we are to frustrate their war aims at the least possible cost, then we have to use the means available to us to combat their primary (indeed only) tactic — terrorism.
That is why Gaw's objections are empty. He, and you, fail to come to grips, even for a moment, with defining what constitutes torture, the costs of declining opportunities to gain information, or unintended consequences. To wit: we decide to render coercion so toothless as to make any information Islamist captives possess unattainable. To our forces in the field, that renders captives worthless. So instead of getting, say, waterboarded, they get shot instead. In what moral calculus is that the preferable outcome?
Perhaps worse, all of you neglect the seemingly salient fact that the tactic Islamists use is entirely outside the law of armed conflict. That doesn't mean ignoring moral considerations, but that also means empty moral preening is nothing more than posturing.
At least in a lawful court [Al-Awlaki] could be condemned to death by clear and public evidence, not hearsay. That, to me, makes a lot of difference.
Yet reality completely contradicted your premise. He gets to commit treason (a capital crime, BTW) with complete immunity until such time as he is willing to show up in court? Alternatively, of course, we could have captured him. How many special ops guys lives are you willing to put at significant risk to do so?
[Harry:] Oh, but I did. I had and have no objection to bumping off mass murderers, and I proposed several alternative approaches.
Then by all means use your awesome linking skillz.
All I remember is your dehumanizing "not enough boots on the ground", then a para later saying we should have left it to the Kurds. Can't have it both ways.
[Hey Skipper:] Peleliu.
Now that is an amazing obtuse comment coming from a military man. As Wellington about warfare, 'After all some things must be left to chance.'
Peleliu was pointless from the git go, and subsequent events only prove the point.
The point being that your moral preening is self defeating.
[AOG:] My read is that when the Bush Administration talked about WMD, they meant the standard and official definition, which includes chemical weapons.
Correct. It is the same definition Obama used wrt Syria.
Harry's claim that WMD was the only reason for the invasion is a perfect example of simplism, and selective memory. Here is a refresher.
[Clovis:] The killing of those "cavemen" (as many think of the Afghans and Pakistanis dying by drones), easily dismissed by the greater American society, ultimately will also lead to the same sin being inflicted upon themselves.
You must admit that shooting schoolgirls, throwing acid in their faces, blowing up their school buildings, and killing people trying to administer polio vaccinations does have the potential for certain, unfortunate, PR consequences.
Except for the moral equivalency brigade.
From Harry comment above: Not to mention that the US policy of civilian command has -- at least from Lincoln to Roosevelt -- been to have the C-in-C set the strategic goals and then let the soldiers fight the way their professionalism suggests.
One of the gravest charges that we* can lay against the rightwingers is that they abandoned that wise approach, and the Democrats have not resisted.
*who's 'we' ?
At long last, Harry has defined a rightwinger and it's none other than his hero, Uncle Joe's little nephew, Frankie.
BTW Harry, I must have missed your apology for the vegan/baby elk crack.
erp, I said Roosevelt (I meant FDR not Teddy, who had only the Filipino insurrection to deal with) continued the wise old policy, although it cost him political capital inasmuch as the rightwingers were trying to force him to abandon it.
I must keep reminding myself that you know nothing about American history.
I am not following Skipper. Who does he think ran the Peleliu operation?
I also don't get what would be dehumanizing about being part of an adequately sized and managed occupation force. It is, after all, part of the laws of war these days.
RtO will soon (maybe later today) have more to say about that.
Clovis;
When I did so, I recognized the excess and apologized.
I didn't do so and confirmed not doing so when you asked.
Harry, and I said, Frankie, not Teddy. I know history as it happened, not the left-wing propaganda version.
Skipper,
---
My argument is that the situation vis a vis Iraq had reached a point where the existing containment policy could no longer hold [...]
---
Yes, you *assume* that, never bothering to justify it.
Iraq situation changed nothing, what changed was US mindset after 9/11. It awakened this pavlovian impulse that drove you to think that suddenly something, anything, ought to be done about Iraq, no matter what.
It was a faltering country, greatly affected by the sanctions, with no muscle to give troubles to anyone anymore.
---
I don't recall seeing, whether from you or the NYT's international editor, a remotely reasoned argument for an alternative course of action.
---
I quote to you an American of wiser times, from the last link I posted above:
"Should the United Sates government roam the world seeking monsters to slay, or should it learn from its recent grave mistakes? Nearly two centuries ago, President John Quincy Adams warned his successors against the foreign policies that would be manifest in the Bush/Obama years. “Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons that they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy.”
That's all you need when thinking about alternative course of actions.
---
You have fallen into the gaping PC trap we have constructed for ourselves since 9/11. Because we will not call it for what it is, a war in Islamism, then we use "terrorism" as a synecdoche.
---
That's just one more talking point of a brainwashed man.
One guy enters in a building in a sunny day, shoots 20 people. If he is white, or black or even Asian, he is just one more insane mind who got a gun and a score to settle. But if he is bearded and has a Muslim name, ops, that's War!
---
Perhaps worse, all of you neglect the seemingly salient fact that the tactic Islamists use is entirely outside the law of armed conflict.
---
And that should be one more reason fo you to recognize this is not war.
Pray tell me, which of your home made terrorists, pre-9/11, respected "the law of armed conflict"? Which one of the countless crazies shooting school children paid attention to that too?
---
He gets to commit treason (a capital crime, BTW) with complete immunity until such time as he is willing to show up in court? Alternatively, of course, we could have captured him. How many special ops guys lives are you willing to put at significant risk to do so?
---
And can you explain to me why is he any different, in that regard, of all the others fugitives of the US justice system?
Maybe one day you'll come to recognize that he is no different at all, which will pose the question on why not to use drones on the rest too.
---
You must admit that shooting schoolgirls [...] does have the potential for certain, unfortunate, PR consequences.
---
I surely agree.
To kill those same shoolgirls, their mothers and grandparents, and a bunch of other innocent people just because they happened to be nearby someone that maybe has a connection with the bad guys, is awful PR indeed.
Or should be. In your country, it looks like people are not reading much of that to worry about.
You can start by here:
http://www.livingunderdrones.org/
Or here:
http://web.law.columbia.edu/human-rights-institute/counterterrorism/drone-strikes/counting-drone-strike-deaths
Take a look at the numbers in the reports. A great number of times the innocents are sacrificed by default, not by "accident" - it is a policy of assassination with little regard for innocent blood, hence it is no accident, it is built for that.
Who are the caveman here again?
Clovis;
Iraq situation changed nothing, what changed was US mindset after 9/11. It awakened this pavlovian impulse that drove you to think that suddenly something, anything, ought to be done about Iraq, no matter what.
Simply not true.
AOG,
Am I supposed to divine what your argument is with that link?
I was pointing out that the Bush Administration policy for regime change in Iraq was in fact the official, bi-partisan policy for Iraq that long predated the 9/11 attacks. You've got your causality backwards.
I could also point out that a nearly year long, very public debate is also not consistent with "pavlovian".
AOG,
I don't think your point has much to do with mine. There was no serious talk about Iraq invasion pre-9/11. It is a far stretch to equate that 1998 policy recipe with 2003.
It is a fairly simple question: Had not 9/11 happened, would Iraq?
Clovis:
Am I supposed to divine what your argument is with that link?
Yes. Iraq situation changed nothing, what changed was US mindset after 9/11 is demonstrably wrong.
Yes, you *assume* that [the containment policy could no longer hold] never bothering to justify it.
Oh, come on. I provided an extensive and detailed justifying my conclusion, to which your response has been, effectively, [crickets].
That's vacuous enough, or so I thought, until you said That's all you need when thinking about alternative course of actions.
Umm, no, it isn't. Except, of course, for people who believe that there is such a thing as nothing.
One guy enters in a building in a sunny day, shoots 20 people. If he is white, or black or even Asian, he is just one more insane mind who got a gun and a score to settle. But if he is bearded and has a Muslim name, ops, that's War!
I thought I gave a pretty clear definition of War — certainly sufficient to distinguish between the former and the latter. Not that I am taking credit for Clausewitz, of course. Your inability to distinguish between Islamism and mere insanity suggests you need to do a little review.
And [Islamists operating completely outside the LOAC] should be one more reason for you to recognize this is not war.
That is as perfect an example of a non sequitur I have read in a very long time.
And can you explain to me why is he any different, in that regard, of all the others fugitives of the US justice system?
An question in response to a question is not an answer.
When the US justice system finds fugitives in the US, it attempts to capture try them in a court of law. If they resist, the US justice system kills them.
So, no difference there.
To kill those same shoolgirls, their mothers and grandparents, and a bunch of other innocent people just because they happened to be nearby someone that maybe has a connection with the bad guys, is awful PR indeed.
Or should be. In your country, it looks like people are not reading much of that to worry about.
We get to read about it all the time.
However, many of us understand that the fault lies with Islamists surrounding themselves with non-combatants. Your policy would be to allow them to do so with impunity.
The pre-invasion containment policy cost no American lives and much less money than the Bush policy, so to claim that it could not have been continued defies reality.
What defies reality is that the sanctions regime existed in a vacuum.
Unlike your response.
I do not claim it existed in a vacuum. I contend it was cheap and, in terms of Amrrican lives, free.
Do you disagree?
Skipper,
---
Oh, come on. I provided an extensive and detailed justifying my conclusion, to which your response has been, effectively, [crickets].
---
In that link of your, please scroll down to the section "The Status Quo Ante". You play a list of reasons supposed reasons for which the containment policy could no longer hold.
I believe most items there are irrelevant, and constitute no reason for an invasion at all. You just post them and want me to believe it was all reason enough. I don't buy it.
---
Your inability to distinguish between Islamism and mere insanity suggests you need to do a little review.
---
Or maybe you should think harder on what should we call people who decide to take their own lifes and maximize the number innocents they take down with them.
Do you think that a crazy man differs from the other by its alleged motives?
I will concede to you that 9/11 was indeed an act of War. It was thoroughly planned by an organization with the implicit (or maybe explicit) backing of a State. And that absolutely justifies the Afghanistan war.
Beyond that, most renditions and drone attacks done nowadays have little to do with Al Qaeda. Most lone wolf islamic terrorists out there differ very little from your homemade mass murderers that, month in, month out, attack schools, shoppings or whatever else.
Pay attention that even their age ranges coincide - that's because schizophrenia manifests itself mainly in young adults.
---
An question in response to a question is not an answer.
---
Actually, it is, usually a good one since it answers something and makes the other party to think harder, all of that with minimum use of words.
Of course, when the other party does not think at all, the process is frustrated. Your comparison with the Dorner case is just so non-sense, I'll refrain from further comments.
---
However, many of us understand that the fault lies with Islamists surrounding themselves with non-combatants. Your policy would be to allow them to do so with impunity.
---
Look, you've asked me to point out your bias if I could spot it, and I am getting tired: it is hard to find a not biased view within yours in this topic.
If you care to pay attention to the reports I've linked, the numbers, the witness descriptions, the picture emerging is quite different. It takes a great lack of skepticism to buy this official picture where the bad guys are all hiding behind innocent people.
Usually the subject barely knows he is being targeted by a drone - it is obvious, otherwise he would go hiding indeed. In many cases he is just nearby his family, carrying on his life as usual. It is much cheaper for the drone program to shoot whenever it can than to wait for the target to be alone. Posed with Innocent lifes X Budget, who do you think your operators have chosen?
I guess I should ask pardon for repeatedly getting the plural of "life" wrong above.
Clovis, if only all your mistakes were all grammatical.
Erp,
What, my phrasing style keep sounding alien to you?
Clovis, your U.S. expat mentor/adviser/colleague needs to be consulted more often because although I am in awe of your command of English and probably at least Spanish, German and French, it's the little things that trip up non-native speakers (see Stalag 17).
Erp,
I don't speak French, and I have no idea where to find that old movie (never heard about, but thanks Google) by now... I won't try to download it either, least a drone shows up here to fumigate me.
Clovis, Stalag 17 is an iconic movie in which the German spy posing as a captured U.S. flyer is tripped up because although he was well prepped, an easy one got by him.
It's a good movie and the nice part about it is the good guys won.
It's the old old problem with war from the air: target acquisition.
It has never been solved.
That's why you need a lot of infantry. (RtO has now explained this at greater length.)
Of course, in alien societies, even infantry has severe problems with target acquisition.
[Clovis:] I believe most items there are irrelevant, and constitute no reason for an invasion at all. You just post them and want me to believe it was all reason enough. I don't buy it.
That's not an argument, that is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other side says.
Clearly, you prefer Saddam have remained in power. Since that is your position, you need to argue its potential consequences. You haven't.
Or maybe you should think harder on what should we call people who decide to take their own lifes and maximize the number innocents they take down with them.
Do you think that a crazy man differs from the other by its alleged motives?
You need to re-think again the concept of war. Islamists have political goals they are pursuing through other means. What, pray tell, are the political goals the insane are pursuing?
Actually, [answering a question with a question is] usually a good one since it answers something and makes the other party to think harder, all of that with minimum use of words.
Perhaps, but not in this case. Your failure to propose anything like an equally detailed counterargument suggests you simply do not have one. I doubt you gave, say, the sanctions regime a second's thought before I brought it up. Or the objectives of purported allies, or the responses of other countries in the region to an alternative course of action which you haven't specified, nor argued.
If you care to pay attention to the reports I've linked, the numbers, the witness descriptions …
I did. The first is so full of qualifiers as to say almost nothing, and the second says even less.
Your position It is much cheaper for the drone program to shoot whenever it can than to wait for the target to be alone. provides endless impunity to the enemy: all they need do is keep some human shields around, and they can do whatever they want.
And you also ignore that a consequence of our drone operations may well be putting a wedge between Islamists and the rest of the population — in essence, turning terrorism upon itself.
[Harry:] It's the old old problem with war from the air: target acquisition.
It has never been solved.
That's why you need a lot of infantry. (RtO has now explained this at greater length.)
Of course, in alien societies, even infantry has severe problems with target acquisition.
That is four lines of bollocks.
Target acquisition is always a problem; for infantry, it is impossible beyond a few hundred yards.
You only need mass numbers of infantry if you intend to hold territory; since that isn't our war aim (see, for another example, the number of infantry we had in the Balkans), then a lot of infantry is not only beside the point, it may well be counter productive.
Skipper,
---
Clearly, you prefer Saddam have remained in power. Since that is your position, you need to argue its potential consequences. You haven't.
---
Oh, "Clearly prefer"?
Are you unable to differentiate between "It is none of my damn business" and "I do want that!"?
Are we arguing over the potential consequences of Merkel remaining in power? Obama? Anyone else? Since when am I obliged to argue about consequences of someone remaining in power in a far away land that has no direct consequences to my own? You turn over the table of logic here to require something from me that is not necessary, and if I do not give it, hey, so that War is then justified!
Such is the wonderful trail of logic you present me.
And please, please, do not give me the line on how no one would ever get Oil again were Iraq not invaded.
---
Islamists have political goals they are pursuing through other means. What, pray tell, are the political goals the insane are pursuing?
---
What, pray tell, re the political goals the islamists are pursuing? Let's take an explicit example: explain to me the Tsarnaev brothers political goal.
While doing that, also please try to think if there is a point where a "political goal" is so out of touch with reality that we can claim its pursuers are insane. Even more if said political goal was whispered to them while they were hearing voices.
---
Your failure to propose anything like an equally detailed counterargument suggests you simply do not have one.
---
Right, I don't. I have no illusion of being able to completely control and predict the future. You look unable to grasp that little concept.
---
Your position It is much cheaper for the drone program to shoot whenever it can than to wait for the target to be alone. provides endless impunity to the enemy: all they need do is keep some human shields around, and they can do whatever they want.
---
No - they usually can not do their things, the ones you want to deny, while having those same people around. Hence what about only shooting people who are actually doing something wrong and dangerous for real?
If you care to takse seriously the bogus notion of "an imminent threat of violent attack" used to kill even Americans with drones (with their broader "concept of imminence"), we ought to be shooting children for fear they may grow up to be a terrorist.
Ops, what, they are already doing that?
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/08/11/more-than-160-children-killed-in-us-strikes/
---
And you also ignore that a consequence of our drone operations may well be putting a wedge between Islamists and the rest of the population — in essence, turning terrorism upon itself.
---
So I finally see a glimpse of honesty from you on what this is all about.
Yes, we should be punishing entire families from what one member does. And with not even a trial, evidence, anything resembling a proper justice system. Mind you, not even talion law is that random.
You are right, it is unnecessary to hold ground if it is unnecessary.
But in Iraq and Afghanistan it was necessary, and no provisions were made (or possible) to hold it. So we lost.
Are you claiming the problem of target acquistion from the air has been solved? Srsly?
[Clovis:] Are you unable to differentiate between "It is none of my damn business" and "I do want that!"?
But those aren't the options on offer. I have argued for one option, you have argued for nothing.
In this regard, a negative argument is worthless, so try making a positive one.
Are we arguing over the potential consequences of Merkel remaining in power? Obama? Anyone else?
Because I don't think there is any moral, or strategic, equivalency to Merkel and Saddam. Sounds like you do.
And please, please, do not give me the line on how no one would ever get Oil again were Iraq not invaded.
First of all, I never gave you that line (as I have suggested to Harry many times, it is best to quote what people actually say, rather than say what they said).
Rather, a downside risk to not removing Saddam that any responsible decision maker must take into account is Iran's reaction to an unleashed Saddam, and the possibility that could get out of control — with nuclear weapons this time.
What, pray tell, re the political goals the islamists are pursuing?
Restoration of the "caliphate", for one. Subjection of as much area as they can manage to sharia law, for two.
Right, I don't. I have no illusion of being able to completely control and predict the future. You look unable to grasp that little concept.
That is an utterly trivial observation. No one does; the best policy makers can do is envision what the possible outcomes of any strategy might be. As much as Iraq hasn't turned out like the US hoped, it is still far better than having Saddam still in power.
BTW, I'm getting tired of you playing the man, instead of the ball.
If you care to takse seriously the bogus notion of "an imminent threat of violent attack" used to kill even Americans with drones (with their broader "concept of imminence"), we ought to be shooting children for fear they may grow up to be a terrorist.
Ops, what, they are already doing that?
There you go with the moral equivalency again. No mention, at all, whatsoever, of how many children (and other people; I think they count, too) Islamists have killed in Iraq and Afghanistan (or Pakistan). No consideration, at all, whatsoever, of how many might have been killed except for our drone strikes.
[Harry:] But in Iraq and Afghanistan it was necessary, and no provisions were made (or possible) to hold it.
Why? How many would soldiers (not boots) would it have taken? What would have been the downsides of establishing a thoroughgoing occupation?
Are you claiming the problem of target acquisition from the air has been solved?
Once again, please quote what I say, instead of saying what I said. Because, once again, you have gotten it completely wrong.
(Although, it must be said, that target acquisition has gotten much, much better. To the point where Islamists are afraid to use cellphones.)
Skipper,
---
But those aren't the options on offer. I have argued for one option, you have argued for nothing.
In this regard, a negative argument is worthless, so try making a positive one.
---
OK, I will play ball with you.
If I were George W. Bush in 2003, I would go for Plan A: to gradually lift up the sanctions in place against Iraq, in exchange for an agreement where its Oil would only be negotiated through accountable routes such that the payment would go first to international funds in a neutral country. It would be given back to Iraq in two ways: some part in continuous transfers to cover the expense of extraction, another one (mainly the profit) only in periodic windows. If any set of conditions (UN inspections, human rights marks, disarming of WMD and heavy military) were not fulfilled by Iraq in between, the money would not get transfered.
See that, contrary to the rules back then, there would be no limitations to the amount they could sell, and in fact they should get incentives to produce ever more and to reintegrate themselves in the world economy.
It would keep Saddam accountable to some extent, and the best part of it: it would revive their economy. Chances are high that after a decade or so, with a population reconnected to the world and money to live beyond despair, the country would no longer be willing to remain under Saddam's rule - as we have witnessed recently in a few other Arab countries.
In the back channels, the offer of Plan A to Saddam would come with a single condition: accept it, or war.
You know, carrots and sticks only work if there are indeed carrots. The US made long efforts to make sure no carrot would ever be offered to that table.
---
Rather, a downside risk to not removing Saddam that any responsible decision maker must take into account is Iran's reaction to an unleashed Saddam, and the possibility that could get out of control — with nuclear weapons this time.
---
Not if Iran were clearly watching their neightbour to get less and less militarized.
---
Restoration of the "caliphate", for one. Subjection of as much area as they can manage to sharia law, for two.
---
I see you did not answer my question on the Tsarnaevs. Don't let facts stop you, Skipper, keep walking.
---
There you go with the moral equivalency again. No mention, at all, whatsoever, of how many children (and other people; I think they count, too) Islamists have killed in Iraq and Afghanistan (or Pakistan).
---
Now should I be making your arguments for you?
Had we an islamist in this forum, be sure I would give him a hard time too. But up to now, you are the only representative of one of the parties practicing gross human rights violations.
' How many would soldiers (not boots) would it have taken?'
Since 525,000 wasn't nearly enough in South Vietnam, and Iraq and S. Vietnam are similar in size, population and rurality, I'd say a whole lot more than 525,000. In any event, more than we had.
If you want to argue hypotheticals (like a nuclear war between countries without nukes; I'm trying to work with you, but it isn't easy), then try this out:
The invaders flood the zone in Iraq, prevent destruction of infrastructure, create feelings of personal safety and security among all sections of the population, and quickly provide for useful employment of the nation's young men. The peoples of Iraq consequently settle down to a (perhaps resentful) calm and orderliness.
There were other options. In 1922, the RAF bombed the tents of a few sheikhs, killing some hundreds of women and children (Clovis take note) and called in the sheikhs and told them they could settle down or be bombed, one or the other.
For about 15 years, that worked.
The invaders flood the zone in Iraq, prevent destruction of infrastructure, create feelings of personal safety and security among all sections of the population, and quickly provide for useful employment of the nation's young men
That's just one step short of "unicorns overfly the country, farting rainbows of free food and medical care". We can't even do that here, in this country, but we could do it in a foreign country after an invasion?
Even if it could have been done, how would that have stopped the violence by our enemies which was directed mostly at other Iraqis?
P.S. Your mention of the Vietnam War is non-historical as well, go look up how that war actually ended. Hint: It wasn't from insurgents.
If it couldn't have been done, then we shouldn't have invaded. Period.
How did the Vietnam war end? For us, when we bugged out, our army in disarray, unable to impose our will on the enemy and unwilling to do whatever it might have taken to have done that.
But I think you are really asking, how did the Vietnamese civil war end, and the answer is not too hard to figure out. The North, with a population of 55 million, imposed its will on the South, with a population around 20 million.
(If you think about repeating that sentence in the context of American history, then that's no accident.)
If it couldn't have been done, then we shouldn't have invaded. Period.
Let's consider this.
So, if say North Korea invaded South Korea, we should not, under any circumstances, fight back past the DMZ because we couldn't guarantee such things in the North.
Does that mean, in your view, the unwillingness to invade the North was the correct policy, period? Since we couldn't have made those guarantees there, either?
Do you think we should disband our own federal government, since it can't make the same guarantee locally?
What's always been pathetic to me is how the invasion of Iraq is treated as some sui generis, completely unique military operation, in both American and world history. I can see no reason for this other than straight up American or Bush bashing.
Harry, we "bugged" out of Vietnam because lefty politics supported Ho and wanted North Vietnam to win ergo the rules of engagement foisted on the military.
Lefty politics is the the very same reason Iraq became a quagmire in the desert.
... and lefty politics will support the new Soviet Union in the making. How Frankie and Uncle Joe must be smiling from their honored spots in leftwing heaven.
AOG,
---
What's always been pathetic to me is how the invasion of Iraq is treated as some sui generis, completely unique military operation, in both American and world history.
---
Please AOG, illuminate me here. What are the paralells between Iraq and previous US wars in other countries?
What are the paralells between Iraq and previous US wars in other countries?
It is the view that the war with Iraq is unique that is the extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence.
If you want to start with the unsubstantiated assumption of uniqueness and say it's clearly true unless disproven, that's your choice.
AOG,
Gosh. I don't know why you even bothered to answer then.
Because sometimes you have to draw the line on how far you'll let your good faith be abused.
AOG,
Are you implying I am abusing your good faith?
What would you expect form a pro-Ba'athist, American hater, progressive, liberal, anti-capitalist menace like myself, right?
So much for reasoned discourse...
So much for reasoned discourse
Yes, making up things and playing the victim card, as you do in your last comment, is not very reasoned. But I think you could get back to it if you tried.
Reasoned discourse would be, you make a claim ("The Iraqi war is without parallel in military history") and then supply arguments and reason to support the claim.
AOG,
As a matter of fact, I made no such claim - you even use quote marks for a phrase I never said. I'd say that indeed is an act in lack of good faith.
Yet, I do fail indeed to see much in common between Iraq war and other wars the US fought, so I simply asked why do you believe otherwise. But is looks like it is your turn to snit now.
Clovis;
I apologize then, I thought it was an implicit claim, but I will retract if you say it is not.
I will admit that one clear difference in Iraq vs. other American wars is the exceptional concern and avoidance of collateral damage. That's certainly unprecedented.
'So, if say North Korea invaded South Korea, we should not, under any circumstances, fight back past the DMZ because we couldn't guarantee such things in the North.'
I think you are confused here. To be at all parallel, Iraq is the North and the US is South Korea, and, no, I don't think South Korea should invade North Korea.
The US invasion of Iraq was totally voluntary, a good signal that it was a wrongheaded policy, even if the US had had sufficient force to pursue a strategic aim.
I don't know what the strategic aim was, unless to help establish Iran as the local hegemon, and if that was the strategy it was largely successful. The history of the Republican party does indicate that it supports the mullahs' regime in Iran.
I cannot imagine why, but the facts speak for themselves.
AOG,
I do not think the near half million civilians killed in that war quite agree with you, but don't worry, none of them will reply your post to fight off that affirmation.
Harry, were the Republicans supporting the mullahs formerly Democrats like those in earlier years who changed jerseys when they joined the KKK, voted against the CRA, instituted Jim Crow ... and the list goes on?
Carter, the former 2nd worst president (Wilson will probably never get unthroned as worst president) and the rest of the lunatic left championed the Iranian revolution. Remember the shah? The ayotollah? The hostages?
To be at all parallel, Iraq is the North and the US is South Korea
No, the parallel is Iraq and Kuwait.
no, I don't think South Korea should invade North Korea.
Let me be sure I am reading your view, which is that even if a foreign country literally invaded the USA, it would be wrong to counter-invade that nation, we should fight just back to the border and stop at that point.
I don't know what the strategic aim was
Despite numerous speeches and discussions of exactly that, both internationally and in these weblogs, you still don't know.
I do not think the near half million civilians killed in that war quite agree with you
You are making an implicit claim here that all of those civilians were killed by the US military. Is that correct?
erp, erp, erp - this is a guy who apparently thinks the Democratic Party taking control of Congress in 2006 was an "imaginary right wing talking point" and doesn't remember Iraq invading Kuwait. Not to mention anything bad that was done by the Democratic Party in the past was done by people who were really Republicans (e.g., Jim Crow).
Yes and if you don't agree with these even more nonsensical than most, portions of lefty dogma, you are lying, delusional, ignorant, senile (well me), and/or suffering from other nasty fantastical racist elitist class envy-ist ... maladies brought on by hatred of those less fortunate than ourselves.
The only advantage, the most precious one of all, I had was that I was born in the U.S. and I thank my father every single day of my life for making that possible. After that, the rest was up to me.
AOG,
---
You are making an implicit claim here that all of those civilians were killed by the US military. Is that correct?
---
It is not. I made a very explicit comment, I don't think you need to look for implicit meanings.
I do not know, probably no one does, how many were killed by the US army, how many were killed by others.
I do know, though, that had the US not invaded Iraq, that number would be half a million lower.
Hence, not all civilians may have been killed _by_ the US army, but certainly they were killed _due to_ US actions. It is not that hard to understand the difference, is it?
'You know, carrots and sticks only work if there are indeed carrots. The US made long efforts to make sure no carrot would ever be offered to that table.'
Bingo!
I dunno. I thought we were talking about Gulf War II, so I don't see the relevance of GWI, except, of course, that for lack of infantry the US was unwilling and unable to finish GWI off in a strategic sense.
Harry, you don't know what you're talking about. The decision about GWI was again political and had nothing to do with lack of infantry. We were foolishly trying to not upset the balance of power in area and didn't listen to our military the same as we didn't listen to them at the end of the second world war, Korea, Vietnam ...
Had we done so, the world would be a much more peaceful and prosperous place now, but then again, socialism would be dead and buried and that isn't the goal of those who benefit greatly by chaos.
Clovis;
OK, I have no idea what your point is, and what it has to do with my claim. Every war in which the USA has been involved has had civilian casualties. That's one of those little parallels you are unaware of, apparently. Is your view that the USA is always responsible for all civilian casualties in any war in which the USA is involved?
I thought we were talking about Gulf War II
No, we were talking about your view which I interpret as "even if a foreign country literally invaded the USA, it would be wrong to counter-invade that nation, we should fight just back to the border and stop at that point."
Is that accurate or not?
No, it seems as delusional as erp's posts.
In 2003, the US was the invader, remember?
If the US had not invaded, there would not have been any war, would there?
AOG,
---
OK, I have no idea what your point is, and what it has to do with my claim.
---
My points lately have been all very explicit, I believe. If you had no idea what they are yet, I can only explain that as optional blindness.
---
Every war in which the USA has been involved has had civilian casualties. That's one of those little parallels you are unaware of, apparently.
---
Oh, that's your parallel?
Interesting how you forgot to mention they used guns in all those wars too, right? Powder either!
I believe it is my good faith the one being abused here.
Clovis;
Well, I make a factual claim, and you respond with a description of your inner psychology as if that's relevant, and has, by your own admission, no additional meaning. Whatever...
Mr. Eagar;
I'm not talking about 2003. You are, to avoid answering my question.
AOG,
I believe your initial claim, "one clear difference in Iraq vs. other American wars is the exceptional concern and avoidance of collateral damage" is nothing factual. It is indeed your "inner psychology" speaking.
After all, a civilian killed in the war couldn't care less if the bomb hitting him was sent with any "concern". The fact is, he is dead. Half a million of them are. And for what?
But look, I am really tired of pointing fingers here. It is done, the dice have been played, there is no changing of results. If, knowing all you do now about that war, you still think it was worthwhile... then there is little to argue about, really.
Clovis;
How is that not factual? It make no reference to my mental state.
a civilian killed in the war couldn't care less if the bomb hitting him was sent with any "concern".
But perhaps he would care whose bomb it was, even though you don't.
I am not avoiding your question. I am ignoring it, since it doesn't apply to anything I said. I was clear that my objection was to invading a country without the capacity to administer conquered territory.
Your question makes no sense.
I was clear that my objection was to invading a country without the capacity to administer conquered territory.
Exactly, and I asked a question about precisely that situation, where a country we lack the capacity to administer invades a country that is our ally.
If you think those two cases are 'precisely' the same, you really are delusional.
But, for the record, there is no obligation to administer an aggressor state that has been repelled; and historically, there has not usually been any opportunity even to try.
I think you are the one avoiding the issue, which boils down to, Bush II started a war he could not possibly have won; what is the justification for that?
Mr. Eagar;
If you think those two cases
I didn't have two cases, only one. Country A invades American ally country B.
there is no obligation to administer an aggressor state that has been repelled
Non-responsive - is it your view that invading country A should be forbidden if the USA can not reasonably expect to administer country A?
Bush II started a war he could not possibly have won
My view is that Bush didn't start it, the Ba'athist regime did when it invaded Kuwait, and I don't think it was an unwinnable war. You are begging the question as usual.
2003, we are talking about 2003.
I am, anyway.
Time to play some more catchup.
[Clovis:] If I were George W. Bush in 2003, I would go for Plan A: to gradually lift up the sanctions in place against Iraq, in exchange for an agreement where its oil would only be negotiated through accountable routes such that the payment would go first to international funds in a neutral country.
Thank you for posing a positive argument. For the following reasons, I disagree with it; that doesn't mean it is wrong, in the sense that, had Bush chosen that path, things would have turned out worse. Rather, I think there are substantial reasons to expect your policy would fail.
There is a great deal hiding under "… in exchange for an agreement …" That implies a negotiation, in which the UN would cede things already decided — in essence, that would amount to accepting terms even worse than those that already existed.
Moreover, that sounds an awful lot like the Oil For Food program that Saddam brutally traduced (and the moral cost of which Harry is happy to ignore), and which so grotesquely corrupted the UN.
Then there is the problem of expecting Saddam to live up to agreements in the future when his existing track record demanded precisely the opposite conclusion. Saddam had it amply in his power to comply with the existing demands, yet he didn't. Why?
Operation Iraqi Freedom did not spring wholly formed from nothing — there is more than a decade of the Saddam regime's behavior that must be taken into account. In my opinion, you haven't done so.
And you also assume, contrary to all experience, and every expectation (including the arms inspectors) that Saddam would, without restraint, become less militarized.
Saddam had ample opportunity to avoid the US invasion. That he chose not to is an enduring puzzle; I haven't found any explanation for his behavior that is at all consistent with either his, or Iraq's, interests.
[Harry:] The invaders flood the zone in Iraq, prevent destruction of infrastructure, create feelings of personal safety and security among all sections of the population, and quickly provide for useful employment of the nation's young men.
This is exactly what I mean when I say the anti-war left presents nothing but a different version of a hard vacuum.
What, exactly, does "flood the zone" mean?
Why, precisely, is it an obligation upon the US to prevent the Iraqis from destroying their own infrastructure and killing each other? What if, as Syria is amply demonstrating, even more Iraqi infrastructure would have been destroyed, and even more Iraqis killed, if the US hadn't invaded? Why is preventing an un-sanctioned Saddam reconstituting his military a bad policy?
Between you and PZ Meyers, I can't figure out who is the most rabid, and least analytical.
[Clovis:] I do not think the near half million civilians killed in that war quite agree with you, but don't worry, none of them will reply your post to fight off that affirmation.
As I suggested above: Iraq. Syria. Discuss.
[erp:] The decision about GWI was again political and had nothing to do with lack of infantry. We were foolishly trying to not upset the balance of power in area and didn't listen to our military the same as we didn't listen to them at the end of the second world war, Korea, Vietnam ...
It isn't nearly that simple. Regardless of anything else, it makes no sense to kill someone who is committing suicide.
The expectation was that the debacle of GWI would end up in Saddam being, probably violently, deposed.
There are other, good, reasons why we didn't press on to Baghdad, but that one alone suffices.
[Harry:] No, it seems as delusional as erp's posts.
Considering how often you post things that are glaringly wrong, or irrelevant, and to which you never own up, I'd be leery about calling anyone else "delusional".
[Clovis:] I believe your [AOG's] initial claim, "one clear difference in Iraq vs. other American wars is the exceptional concern and avoidance of collateral damage" is nothing factual. It is indeed your "inner psychology" speaking.
AOG is not entirely correct, although the way he is wrong only amplifies his claim.
Since the Revolution in Military Affairs (If you don't know what that is, I understand. However, that is why you are missing the point.) the ability to avoid collateral damage has greatly increased. With that ability has come an commensurate concern with economy of force. Therefore, starting with GWI, and increasing with each conflict since (contrary to AOG, not just Iraq) the US military has become very concerned, and frequently quite successful, with avoiding collateral damage.
Keep in mind I am someone who has a great deal of knowledge, no small amount of it first hand, on this subject.
[Harry:] I was clear that my objection was to invading a country without the capacity to administer conquered territory.
What is clear is that you will grasp at any straw to sustain your narrative.
The concept of administering conquered territory is predicated upon its physical decimation.
Unlike virtually all of warfare until the very recent past, in Iraq that simply didn't happen.
The Iraqis, had they chosen too, could have immediately established a civil society. They didn't.
I listed some Bush mistakes above. To them should possibly, maybe probably, be added Paul Bremer's appointment as the Presidential Envoy to Iraq. It is possible, maybe probable, that banned the Ba'ath Party, and anyone who had ever been a member, from any position in the Iraqi government was a serious mistake.
However, it is impossible to know. (Although, I'm inclined to agree that Bremer pretty much cocked it up.)
What is certain, though, is that had Bremer chosen differently, the anti-war left would have hated that, too.
Skipper,
---
Time to play some more catchup.
---
Hey, I was hoping you wouldn't, the thread had at some point 366 comments, the number was beautiful and I hoped no one spoiled it. Now we need to fight again until some other nice number shows up...
Anyway, I play catch up on this one later on, need to go now.
Skipper
I try to simplify when "talking" to lefties because their knowledge doesn't extend far from sound bites or as in Harry's case, obscure "historians" who explain things in obtuse terms only understandable to the indoctrinated.
Every war, in fact, every single thing is somehow political, but it has only been since Wilson that all our wars have had as the desired result, the promotion of socialism aka one world, etc., not the welfare of the United States and We, the People.
The events in the Crimea are a logical extension of that end. The "noble experiment" of the Soviet Union failed on its merits, but that isn't how it was supposed to be, so with the help of Obama et al. it will be allowed another go at it.
All the millions killed in those earlier efforts and the continued efforts are just so much omelet making while a single hair damaged on the head of a civilian that can be pinned to Bush will be a cause célèbre unto eternity.
The EU, almost as desirable as the USSR will be sacrificed and chaos will return unless Cruz turns out to be the Knight on the White Horse. If he does, it will indeed be a miracle because he'll be beset from all sides.
... and if it does happen, I will believe there is such a thing as a God in his Heaven improbable as that may be.
I don't think that 'hoping a guy we dislike will be deposed' constitutes policy. Policy is going to war for -- one would hope -- some attainable end.
That didn't happen in 2003. We did not have the capacity to control events. That we didn't try doesn't improve the situation.
rp seems totally confused. Putin is not a socialist, erp. He is a tsarist.
A difference without a distinction. So was Lenin and Stalin. Socialism is just a vehicle for grabbing power and subjugating the peasants and intellectuals. Nobody with any sense ever thought it was anything else.
I don't think that 'hoping a guy we dislike will be deposed' constitutes policy. Policy is going to war for -- one would hope -- some attainable end.
The attainable end -- which we indeed attained -- was avoiding a worse outcome. One would think that Syria's experience over the last couple years would have provided a glimmer of that lesson
As ever, you are arguing for a null.
Harry, Putin is just another collectivist.
Skipper, you are correct if you define collectivist as someone who wants to collect all the power and money into his own and his cronies' hands.
Putin and the oligarchs are collectivists?
Redistributing the income of the hardworking Russians to the drones?
Srsly??
Collecting the income from evil polluting fossil fuel and keeping it for themselves and their cronies.
Drones? What drones?
'Collecting the income from evil polluting fossil fuel and keeping it for themselves and their cronies.'
That is what they are doing, but it is not socialism or collectivism.
Sounds like a Romney contributor list, doesn't it?
... only to those who like yourself have a ridiculously skewed world view.
... but it is not socialism or collectivism.
On that, you are right.
Which means there is plenty of room for it to get even worse.
IOW, return to the glories of the workers' paradise.
Post a Comment