is so great that it just ripped an enormous hole in the Moonbat Continuum.
Will link when it’s available. BTW, Cheney did incorporate some stinging rejoinders to Obama’s earlier speech, so, I think The One made a mistake trying to monopolize the coverage by going first.
On Twitter, Kathy Shaidle states that it’s the greatest speech of the Bush Administration, only a little late. I think that’s about right.
I can’t believe Obama said this in his speech.
“Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions,†Obama said. “I believe that many of those decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I believe that – too often – our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often our government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions.â€
Trimming facts and evidence to fit ideology, uh did this ahole take a look at his own budget numbers?
That sounds vewy painfuw.
Among the usual nutroot suspects the requisite crying and gnashing will be going on about Cheney’s speech for some time…
Look for them to start by questioning the timing, regardless of the stubborn fact that The one! hastily scheduled his appearance just days ago, while Cheneys has been a coming attraction for some time…
I guess that Chris Tingle and Keefy O! will be in a near ecstatic state of righteous indignation tonight…
Not that I would waste the precious moments of my life to watch their melodrama…
I liked that part where Obama insisted that Gitmo likely made more terrorists, and then told us that the record is clear, Gitmo made us less safe. Likely, I guess.
HA! What a Maroon.
I’m using that term instead of asshole. cleaning up my act.
According to an article i just read with excerpts on his speech it said he put some of the “blame” on the American people for not speaking out about waterboarding? WTF is this guy smoking.
Obama, by way of contrast, just sublimated before our eyes, passing directly from a solid state to a gaseous vapor without liquifying first.
I will likely vote against this guy next election that is certain.
ha! “We gotta pass this stimulus bill right now or everyone will die!!!”
A most prodigous buttfucking
“Moonbat continuum?” Is that what the kids are calling Obama’s keister these days?
Obama’s speech text.
Cheney’s speech text.
(sound of crickets)
Yeeeowtch!
I might add that people who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no position to lecture anyone about “values.â€
“I’ve got a bracelet too!”
You having some trouble there, Colin? here, I’ll help you out.
Darth Cheney is single handedly leading the charge for the Republicans. Into the breech …
A one man seminar on leadership.
F*king A.
“I liked that part where Obama insisted that Gitmo likely made more terrorists, and then told us that the record is clear, Gitmo made us less safe. Likely, I guess.”
Has anyone ever been able to articulate just how gitmo, or killing terrorists for that matter, made us less safe? Thanks in advance.
The big eared dimwit said “”“Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions,†Obama said. “I believe that many of those decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I believe that – too often – our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often our government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions””
I believe he was referring to the PORKULUS BILL.
Cap & Trade
Fear provokes foresight. Fear rightly and properly causes a heightened sensitivity to incoming information that may otherwise have been overlooked. Prudent men pay attention, imprudent men believe they already have all the information they require.
Hey look! Michelle’s arms!!!!!111!
“Yet for all these exacting efforts to do a hard and necessary job and to do it right, we hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative. In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.”
Oh yes, he did…
He.went.there…
Thank God someone credible finally has…
Wrong.
Outside of the specifically pro-Republican wing of the rightosphere, every story I’ve seen about Cheney’s speech subordinates it to Obama’s, characterizing it as a “response.”
If that’s how a reader is led onto the scene, Cheney’s “rejoinders” prove his speech’s contingency on Obama’s text, its status as reaction — and Obama’s as sniped-at Leader.
Like I always say, It always works.
Plastic Turkey #50989.
Has anyone ever been able to articulate just how gitmo, or killing terrorists for that matter, made us less safe? Thanks in advance.”
You ignorant twit, this is how it happens.
Jafi Jaffar, sitting in his mud hut in the wastelands of Jordan listens as his wife tells him a tale of horror. You see, her father told her that he heard from his nephew, who heard from his wife (also his cousin), who heard from her sister, who heard the guys gang raping her for taking her shawl off that there was this place on this island somewhere far away where The Great Satan takes little mud-hut chilrens and forces them to convert to Judaism and eat pig.
So, incensed as he is at this intolerable situation, he packs up his camel, kisses his wife, his second wife (which is also his cousin) and his third wife ( a teenager) and heads off to Iraq as another great Warrior for God.
This has the rather obvious side effect of terrorizing leftists the world over thus making our nation less safe.
Hope that clears things up for you.
Barack is at this moment scheduling another speech about this speech, with another tentative speech just in case.
“Another term out there that slipped into the discussion is the notion that American interrogation practices were a “recruitment tool” for the enemy. On this theory, by the tough questioning of killers, we have supposedly fallen short of our own values. This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It’s another version of that same old refrain from the Left, ‘We brought it on ourselves.’…
As a practical matter, too, terrorists may lack much, but they have never lacked for grievances against the United States. Our belief in freedom of speech and religion … our belief in equal rights for women … our support for Israel … our cultural and political influence in the world – these are the true sources of resentment, all mixed in with the lies and conspiracy theories of the radical clerics. These recruitment tools were in vigorous use throughout the 1990s, and they were sufficient to motivate the 19 recruits who boarded those planes on September 11th, 2001.
Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them.
Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them.”
Wow…
That’s also gonna leave a mark or two…
I like this little dig at Biden: “I had the advantage of being a vice president content with the responsibilities I had, and going about my work with no higher ambition.”
Nah. No one will ever hear them.
Anyone want to bet that somebody in the press — major city newspapers, major cable networks, major broadcast networks — brings up Cheney’s “infamous” “fuck you”?
I have been made aware that my previous post may have made ‘some’ uncomfortable so…
I denounce myself in the strongest possible terms.
Fidelity to our values is the reason why the United States of America grew from a small string of colonies under the writ of an empire to the strongest nation in the world.
….and it is the first and only super-power omelet to ever be made without breaking any eggs. Until the previous generation of course.
“…and previous administration. Damn you Teleprompter!”
It appears that Teh One’s prebuttal fell woefully short of the mark. What a mendoucheous twatwaffle.
What we are left with here is that LIBTARDS have doubled down on WEAKNESS and COWARDICE.
Don’t misunderstand, the SPECIAL INTEREST ANTI-PATRIOTIC WEAK TIT organizations that OPIE is sucking up to, have power.
So do we.
We need to act like Cheney,
Not like Spector and Powell.
We fight or get fucked.
You have to consider the source. Cheney has absolutely no credibility to discuss national security and accuse Obama of not having a plan. What plan did the government under Cheney and associates have when they invaded Iraq? None. Most of the so-called plans under the Bush-Cheney administration led to failed policies that actually made the U.S. less safe, destroyed good-will toward the U.S. and setback any efforts toward true democracy more than any modern U.S. administration. The Bush-Cheney policies on national security, foreign policy and domestic policy were disasters and led to the current state of the economy and disastarous energy, education and health care policies. The most significant accomplishment was essentially the destruction on many of our civil liberties – all based on fear. They essentially had no domestic policy plan. Cheney was and still is as close to a Nazi as we’ve ever had at the highest level of government.
Steve put down the crack pipe you complete imbecile. Cheney was working in the White House while Opie was still doing drugs in Hawaii. Cheney served as Defense Secretary. Stevie Wonderboy, what experience does Opie have in Defense and intel. Grow a brain you pathetic pussy.
wait… wait… did they have a plan or didn’t they? I love how your plans always work, that must rawk.
In the midst of all these challenges, however, my single most important responsibility as President is to keep the American people safe. That is the first thing that I think about when I wake up in the morning. It is the last thing that I think about when I go to sleep at night.
Lying drama queen asshole. Keeping the verminous American people safe isn’t even in the top ten of Mr. Soros’s to do list, so don’t you believe Mr. Barack when he lies to you like this. Ending the scourge of childhood obesity is a bigger priority for our fuckhead dirty socialist asshole president than keeping your stupid bitter clingy ass safe. I can’t believe how gay our little country has gotten and how fast.
Steve, if that’s all you got I’m not going to be able to hold onto control of my party and you’re not going to be able to hold onto congress. Try again.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Sounds as if Steve felt the sting of “…have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing,” as he rushes to exhibit it. Along with his scary-smart, of course.
Cordially…
Anything that Chaney does to annoy the left is okay by me. The fact that he is pummeling them with the truth is even more glorious.
Steve hasn’t been by for a while. Hi Steve! Now you can go away again.
“I can’t believe how gay our little country has gotten and how fast.”
Happy you need to remove that word “our” because everytime I hear Obama talk all I ever hear is him say the word “I” 50 times a speech. It is all about him now and you do not want him to fail do you?
This was my favorite Cheney zinger:
It’s all a matter of prospective people.
Dicky should shut up and disappears. He and Bush had eight years and nothing had done. They destroyed America’s images and bankrupt the country without one word from anyone. The new president has been in office just a short time, but he has done so much. Yes, he spent to much, but he has to do so in order to get the economy stable. Dam if he does and dam if he does not….
Well, I for one have been unendingly angry at the terrific loss of innocent American life in that disgusting alQaeda follow-up strike on the heels of 9-11. Goddamn Bush/Cheney for failing to protect those now dead people, who never deserved to die the way they did, and wouldn’t have died if only those cowardly bastards Bush/Cheney had sought to fight alQaeda seriously and disrupt their plans for killing and creating mayhem here in the US.
I think there’s a toy store in Berkeley that sells dolls with a little string you can pull to make it say what Steve did. Original thinker that one.
Keith, that’s the left’s solution to everyone who threatens the narrative. Now, shut up and disappear.
The idea that the U.S. is somehow under an imminent threat from islamofascists poised on the brink of implementing our collective instant annihilation is laughable by any standard. The U.S. is has the greatest natural advantages of any civilization in human history. it effectively controls the entire hemisphere. The vast majority of its land mass is protected along both coasts by 6,000 miles of ocean that stretches east and west thousands of miles. It has a demilitarized compliant neighbor to the north and south. It outspends the entire world combined in military expenditures. It posseses more nuclear subs., bombers, aircraft carriers and missle silos than the entire world combined. It has the largest intelligence service and most sophisticated arsenal of technology and military equipment in the world. It has the most qualified and highest trained military in the world and in human history.
The entire “war against terror” is a tempest in a teapot. It is simply an excuse to whip up hysteria in order to justify a permanent state of militarization. Rather than addressing the root causes, both political parties accept the underlying and over-arching premise that the U.S. government has the unilateral right to impose its will on the rest of the world.
Are there jihadists who conspire to use violence in and against the U.S. Sure. Is it significant? Not especially — certainly not comparatively. Most national and internation intelligence services readily agree that the U.S. “war on terror” has formented the rise of radicalism and increased threats of terror in the world.
In any event, there is an easy way to address the threat of terror. (1) stop participating in it; (2) stop engaging in practices that inspire an increase in the threat; (3) seek out the root causes and grievances motivating terror; and (4) address the causes and grievances.
Methinks, in an attempt to beclown B.O., that Steve and Kieth are the same and are pulling your chains.
Is keith above the famous Keef Olberdouche?
“It has the largest intelligence service”
Tenny don’t you know they lie? At least thats what Pelosi keeps telling me.
4) Address the causes and grievances: They won’t let us annihilate Israel and kill the pig-dog Jews! They don’t believe in the Prophet! They resist Sharia law!
BTW, otherwise, the root causes are a lack of freedom perpetuated by the theocracies that they like. So . . . what are you going to do about it?
Of course, Tennyson is a Kool-aid drinker for reals, and an idiot.
We’re so safe and secure, so isolated from the world’s problems and the jihadist threat is so negligible that we have been able to never, ever suffer from any terrorist attacks whatsoever. So all y’alls hand waving over this hyped-up, imaginary threat is simply a screen to cover for BUSHCHENEYHALIBURTONBLACKHAWK’s real assault on Amerika.
Ooops, I meant America.
Eben, in honor of the Democrats, we’ve renamed Kool-Aid “Donkey Punch”.
you need to remove that word “ourâ€
that’s what struck me … how this narcissistic dipshit really truly seems to believe that telling us what he thinks in his stupid economy-trashing marxist grad student head before he goes to bed is a hugely for real emollient. This is what happens when dirty socialist hungarian muppets start reading and believing their own dirty socialist Associated Press.
So, Keith — how’s the ESL class going? Not quite ready for the final exam, I see.
“In any event, there is an easy way to address the threat of terror. (1) stop participating in it; (2) stop engaging in practices that inspire an increase in the threat; (3) seek out the root causes and grievances motivating terror; and (4) address the causes and grievances.”
Let me translate in Leftest/Tennyson speak:
(1)Stop letting the Joos bomb innocent Palestinians
(2)Stop supporting the Joos
(3)Re neg on the U.N. resolution that established the Zionist Entity
(4)Pay the Palestinians vast sums of cash
There are your answers for you Kool-aid man.
Almost every one of the advantages that Tennyson articulates and proposes as reasons why we ought not consider the terrorist threat serious don’t help us at all when confronted by practitioners of asymetrical warfare. Natural boundaries and friendly neighbors didn’t deter the 9/11 attackers and won’t stop the next attack either. Neither will nuclear subs or bombers.
The threat has always been, and remains, that a relatively small, dedicated group of terrorists could hit us with a nuclear/chemical/biological attack that would paralyze the nation and create ripple effects in our economy and national will that would cripple us abroad.
I thought everyone understood that, especially in the wake of 9/11 and the history of attacks and attempted attacks that preceded that day. But I guess time dims memories and slackens will.
As for addressing root causes, some would argue that Bush’s invasion and remaking of Iraq is an effort to address the root causes of poverty, repression and political stagnation that some consider root causes of islamic terrorism. Time will tell if it succeeds, but ignoring the fact that this front in the GWT has been justified by its architects as just such a “root causes” effort is disingenuous.
Cheney’s the closest we’ve had to a Nazi? To a National Socialist?!
When did Cheney order the firing of an individual employed by a private company?
When did Cheney override standing contract and bankruptcy law to award political supporters?
When did Cheney order the closing of privately-owned businesses?
Jebus, the lefties seriously need to work on the projection.
57
Exactly Happy, that is why I was suggesting using the word “I” instead of “our” America. Because screw that gay America he keeps talking about, that is not ours. He should rename it Imerica.
Problem is, Fred, the likes of Tennyson were protesting for “peace” before the US made any response. The “peace” movement began organizing — I shit you not — the very weekend after 9/11.
They weren’t, by the way, planning to protest the unprovoked murder of thousands of civilians.
Tenneyson,
and yet 9/11 happened. Call it no big deal if you want, but doing so shows you to be an asshole. A stupid one at that.
What does that mean? If you are trying to equate our military actions with terrorism, and say they are the same, you don’t have a sufficient grasp of the English language.
You mean stop being non-Muslim and American?
You don’t know?
What if I don’t want to be Muslim?
I stand here today as someone whose own life was made possible by these documents. My father came to our shores in search of the promise that they offered.
And then he was all meh about it and pretty much decided he wanted nothing to do with me or my mommy and went back to darkest Africa and became a drunk-assed piece of shit Marxist.
I think President Opie is about to sing. Yes. He’s warming up. Let’s listen in…..
ME ME ME ME ME
oh. Barack Obama’s Imerica. Yes… that’s a lot it exactly.
That was an awesome speech. Direct and forthright.
I was shocked by the speed with which the transnational, pacifist left organized against any sort of muscular response to the 9/11 attacks. I wanted to give Tennyson the benefit of the doubt that he wasn’t one of those quislings.
Opie just decided all new Sherman/Obama tanks must get 100MPH.
This mother fucker is getting more narcissistic by the day. Opie the first thing you think of in the morning is…..”I wonder how George Soros is this morning.” Then he looks at the foot of the bed and George is sleeping peacefully.
Tennyson, let’s just stop with the bullshit pretense that it is the war on terror itself that has caused the war on terror. It is not the ‘invasion’ of Iraq which has created a climate of terror.
The cause of hatred towards the U.S. is quite simply the freedoms that this nation affords its citizens. The freedom of religion, of speech, of assembly… It is the freedom that allows men and women to choose their own path in life. It is the freedom from religous persecution. It is the freedom for women to vote. It is America’s undying dedication to supporting the basic human rights of all people.
It is our basic nature as a nation which inspires the threat.
As one of the world peas crowd you contribute to the threat by denying its existence. By burying your head in the sand or by plugging your ears you help to create the environment which would allow terrorism to thrive.
I’m sick to friggin death of you weenie fucks blaming our strength and determination to remain a free nation for the attacks which have been perpetrated against us.
Why didn’t the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait or Iran start the Jihad??
Opie stick to lying you suck at Logic.
Obama didn’t give a speech today.
He was submitting an application to represent Al-Quada as their attorney.
The trolls are character references.
Problem is, Fred, the likes of Tennyson were protesting for “peace†before the US made any response. The “peace†movement began organizing — I shit you not — the very weekend after 9/11.
Yep. My neighborhood in the city was swamped with flyers of missing people after 9/11 and within days these leftist cretins were actually putting up anti-American peace creep flyers on top of them. Sick, single-minded angry people they are.
George:
Then he looks at the foot of the bed and George is sleeping peacefully.
You’ve got that mixed up. It’s the other way ’round.
Er, I meant Gus. Meh on me.
keith? keith?
oh, keefe!
stfu, keefe
It’s the phrase “root causes” that gives them away. It’s code for “what you did to bring this on”.
The USA was declared a den of iniquity after a Muslim lunatic witnessed — HORROR OF HORRORS!!! — a 1950s church dance.
The new president has been in office just a short time, but he has done so much. Yes, he spent to much, but he has to do so in order to get the economy stable. Dam if he does and dam if he does not….
Dam?
a barrier, typically of concrete, constructed to hold back water and raise its level, the resulting reservoir being used in the generation of electricity or as a water supply.
In any event, there is an easy way to address the threat of terror. (1) stop participating in it; (2) stop engaging in practices that inspire an increase in the threat; (3) seek out the root causes and grievances motivating terror; and (4) address the causes and grievances.
Oh Lord. Not another one of those …
I have to disagree they hate us because of our freedoms. I think they are just psychopathic shits that will kill their own people if given the chance. It is what they do everytime if given the chance. I do not think they know us for our “freedoms” but from the characiture they are fed from immams of us helping the “jew” and drinking the blood of muslim babies. IMHO
I think we can attribute that “dam” to his being in a rush to be off to the next wingnutfascist site to post his enlightening response to Cheney’s calumnies, Carin, well, either that or he’s just as moronic as he seems.
Rob said:
“The USA was declared a den of iniquity after a Muslim lunatic witnessed — HORROR OF HORRORS!!! — a 1950s church dance”
From “The Looming Tower” right?
It’s just so “dam” disappointing. Every libtard that visits us just brings so much NOTHING to the conversation.
sigh.
Unfortunately there are other types of dams
How do you stabilize something by ramping up what destabilized it?
“Imerica”…
Good one Mr. Pink…
The bastard went on to “found” the brotherhood, iirc.
Haven’t read it. It’s a relatively well-known anecdote.
Well, they actually bring a lot. Unfortunately, it’s nothing that hasn’t been batted away repeatedly over the last 8.5 years.
Hey gus,
You’ve got the roles a bit reversed in your Soros/Opie vignette…
Anytime Soros wonders how Opie is doing, he simply looks down in his lap to see if Opie’s little tail is wagging…
And wonders how much more money he can make by “shorting” America…
The Looming Tower should be required reading by every school kid in America.
Like Lord of the Flies.
They can drop Catcher in the Rye to make room.
Perhaps he thinks it’s such sound economic policy that the Chinese couldn’t fail to see the wisdom of bailing us out.
Lee said: “What does that mean? If you are trying to equate our military actions with terrorism, and say they are the same, you don’t have a sufficient grasp of the English language.”
Title 18, I., Ch. 113B, s. 2331: As used in this chapter—
(1) the term “international terrorism†means activities that—
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping . . .
The internal, declassified record and other credible sources plainly establish that the U.S. gov’t has carried out numerous actions that fall well within the terms of the foregoing definition. Now, you may like those actions or dislike, approve or disapprove of those actions. But that has nothing to do with whether the actions themselves qualify as terrorism.
This has nothing to do with whether you or I or anyone else choose to describe ourselves as republican, democrat, liberal, conservative, right-wing, left-wing, or any other comparable term.
Gee, Tennyson, seems that if you apply those regulations to US financial institutions, Obama’s in egregious violation.
The Leftys claim that the GWB administration did indeed destroy any Republican claim to be the small gov party seems true to me. Compassionate conservatism , my left nut.
But trying to link abandonment of the traditional Republican Party values of small gov and tax cuts with the manner GWB fought TWOT is ridiculous. It can’t be done logically.
Rob Crawford said: “The cause of hatred towards the U.S. is quite simply the freedoms that this nation affords its citizens.”
Actually, that is incorrect. CIA analysts specializing in the study of jihadist terror have concluded that folks like Bin Laden, the Taliban, Muslim extremists and the like don’t “hate our freedoms” (to adopt a standard formulation); rather, they object to and oppose specific U.S. policies and practices that are perceived (correctly or incorrectly) as threatening to the so-called Muslin world and particular Muslim countries.
Tennyson,
You mean all those actions Obama has promised to continue? I’m sorry dude, but you’re depressingly bad at this.
Seems that Opie is doing just that with his BAIL-OUT money threat to California Tennyson. Shall we impeach him?
See, that right there is your first problem. Everything was nice and legal, authorized by congress and everything.
Try again sparky.
Huh. A seagull troll. My favorite kind.
Dan Collins said: “Gee, Tennyson, seems that if you apply those regulations to US financial institutions, Obama’s in egregious violation.”
An interesting observation, and not an implausible one. Let’s hear your argument.
hf, indeed. I find it passing strange that the Prez would invoke his father as a source of inspiration about America. Didn’t seem to want much truck with it other than leaving an ex-wife and dependents behind there.
Be charitable. The Obamessiah hasn’t left him much to work with outside of his hatred.
to intimidate or coerce a civilian population
Barack Obama and his skeezey woman are a lot coercive. Them and their dirty socialist media. Fascist dicklicks. I never dreamed he was a for real terrorist though.
This is getting scarier and scarier.
“they object to and oppose specific U.S. policies and practices that are perceived (correctly or incorrectly) as threatening to the so-called Muslin world and particular Muslim countries.”
Short for anything supporting Israel or having the evil infidel influence their culture? Show me some statistics supporting this blind assertion please.
Dear dear Tennyson, you slip and panties are showing.
“”(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;””
What if California lays off it’s UNIONIZED STATE EMPLOYEES as their contracts stipulate California may do?
Opie the wonder Mullato wouldn’t “intimidate or coerce” them would he.
How about his treatment of those HEDGE FUNDS who own Chrysler or GMC debt??? Tennyson, your ass must be sore from this butt kicking. Or is your ass sore from something else??
You said that much more gentlemanly-like than I was able to muster, LTC John.
Tennyson: “The only thing standing between you and pitchforks is my administration.” So take the money and give us the shares, capiche?
Why bother, Mr. Pink? The idiots can never move beyond platitudes that, in the end, blame us for being hated.
That happens a lot.
I guess “correctly or incorrectly” covers just about all contingencies!!! No wiggle room there.
You know what threatens the Muslim world?
Non-Muslims.
Cut that out. Submit. We will quit bombing civilian targets.
That what ya got in mind sparky?
Barry’s 2 daddy’s couldn’t even stand him.
That campaign threat that President Dopie made about invading Pakistan, I’m sure that didn’t coerce anything nor cause any ill feelings in the Muzzzzzzim world.
Steve, keith, Tennyson —
We have heard it all before. We don’t just disagree, we think you’re completely full of shit.
The whole thing is based on “sympathy for the underdog” — in scare quotes because what is superficially sympathy is in fact casually dooming them to a Hobbesian life. The basic thought is people employ violence to get what they want, and the way to avoid violence is to give them what they want. It doesn’t work, either with playground bullies, terrorists, or imperialist nations. Say it again: IT DOES NOT WORK.
Why doesn’t it work? — because something that works will be repeated, having been shown as a successful tactic. If the playground bully beats up a kid for his lunch money, and the teacher punishes the one who got pummeled for “responding violently”, the bully got what he wanted by employing violence. Having succeeded, he will do it again. Terrorists will respond in exactly the same way.
As for the rest of the Yglesiasisms —
Quite true — but a strawman; anyone suggesting that the threat of “collective instant annihilation” is what is driving the War on Terror is either a liar or too stupid to pay any attention to.
Hint for you: quoting Charles Lindbergh ca. 1938 is not a contribution to the debate. A plane ticket from anywhere on the planet to anywhere else costs approximately 100 barrels of oil. Isolationism is a non-starter. We aren’t isolated any more, thanks to technology.
American policy for the last half-century has been based on a very few fundamental principles:
1)There are still bad guys out there;
2)Trusting the Europeans to take care of them leads to worldwide ruin.
Our policy, therefore, has been to maintain a military so others don’t have to, because they have demonstrated [see: Twentieth Century history] that they aren’t responsible users of military force.
Terrorism isn’t the reason the US keeps a big military; see above.
As for “root causes” — we agree that root causes exist. We simply disagree about what they are. You would have us believe that walking with shoulders timidly hunched, apologizing when anyone took offense, and paying up whenever wealth is demanded would make us loved and respected. We don’t believe that that is the case, and defy you to point at any instance when that has been the case for the US or anybody else.
Well, at least you don’t live on Alpha Centauri A IV.
You are gonna have to give us some cites on that. I have never seen any such statement, unless perhaps from the French on behalf of their hyperaggressive mercantilist agenda.
Ah, here it comes.
Which is to say, when attacked simply grin and bear it, because any attempt to commit the gross sin of trying to do normal business constitutes an attack justifying retaliation.
Which is to say, when a tinpot tyrant starts screaming anti-American (and anti-Semitic) rhetoric, send diplomats to agree with him and make sure they have plenty of money to donate.
–but only Left-approved “root causes” and “grievances” — the fact that much of it derives from poverty and oppression which in turn derives from the antics of the dictators, tyrants, and despots Leftoids love because they are “expressions of the perfectly valid underlying society”.
Which is to say, pay up whenever it’s demanded, and stop preventing them from killing Jews, Kurds, Shi’ia, non-Muslim Somalis and Darfurians, etc., etc., because it just causes resentment and backlash.
As I said above, we don’t believe that that will work, let alone what it does to the principles we believe in. We find it astonishing that Democrats have gone from “pay any price, bear any burden” to “you’re on your own, motherf*ers” in a generation.
Regards,
Ric
[who is hoping he didn’t lose track of the blockquotes. this blog could use a [preview] button]
here we go. who knew that predator drones were morally equivalent to school bombings and beheadings..
Seagull troll?
Fred said: “I was shocked by the speed with which the transnational, pacifist left organized against any sort of muscular response to the 9/11 attacks. I wanted to give Tennyson the benefit of the doubt that he wasn’t one of those quislings.”
Don’t know what you mean by “left”. I’m an insurance underwriter in Iowa. I don’t belong to any policital organizations, unless that includes the Rotary Club!
In any event, what is wanting in the aftermath of 9/11 was a sense of scale and a proper cost/benefit analysis. A simple Coasean analysis shows that the nature of the response effectuated a loss to U.S. GNP to the tune of about $4 trillion dollars within the first six months. The practice adopted by my government was comparatively wasteful and counter-productive.
Mr. Pink re,
I have to disagree they hate us because of our freedoms. I think they are just psychopathic shits that will kill their own people if given the chance. It is what they do everytime if given the chance. I do not think they know us for our “freedoms†but from the characiture they are fed from immams of us helping the “jew†and drinking the blood of muslim babies. IMHO
I agree that there are many a psycho nutjobs out there who do not need justification for their acts. But you can’t spread the psychosis without a compelling argument for others to join in on the crazy. Note: the argument does not have to have merit, it just has to be told in such a manner to enrage those whom one hopes to influence to their cause.
Hmmm. I wonder how many nutcases have been drafted with the use of visual aids: NYT, WP, Playboy…the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution?
Totally off-topic: but has anyone else seen the green commercial with the shriveled older gent in blue jeans and baseball cap, chilling in a local greasy spoon, and going on about the evil oil companies? Does anyone else suspect it’s the first time the guy has ever worn jeans or eaten in a greasy spoon?
..
and now, it is morally superior to pursue the bottom line over the safety of our citizenry.
wow.
Ric Locke said: “American policy for the last half-century has been based on a very few fundamental principles: 1)There are still bad guys out there;
2)Trusting the Europeans to take care of them leads to worldwide ruin.”
You are severely deceived. As George Keenan explained over a half-century ago, U.S. foreign policy is motivated principally by maintaining the disparity between U.S. wealth and power, on the one hand, and that of the rest of the world. Now, again, you may like that or not like that. But let’s not pretend that foreign policy is borne of some manichean mission to protect good from evil. That stuff may be appropiate for junion high school civics classes, but it is not the basis of a foreign policy.
They stone their own. They oppress their own women. We are just part of their hit list.
This mother fucker is getting more narcissistic by the day.
Welcome to Parador. The Dictator’s cold, the First Lady’s hot, the people are revolting…
and more dead americans means you can spread the remaining [larger amount, since you didn’t frivolously spend money on defense] money around an ever smaller population.
better bottom line and higher per-[living]-capita income. obvious signs of enlightened governance.
So enlighten us Tennyson, what was the “proper” response to 9/11?
Tennyson and keefie are mental midgets. dr kill is more of a demonic midget clown.
121
Well explain to me why whenever these jackasses get in power they off themselves using the same tactics they use to off us? Hell Osama had a guy sneak in as a cameraman and blow himself up to kill another muslim. They will choose westerners when they can but if they ever run outa us they will still be killing eachother. To say we are the cause #1 of their rampages is retarded.
“As George Keenan explained over a half-century ago, U.S. foreign policy is motivated principally by maintaining the disparity between U.S. wealth and power, on the one hand, and that of the rest of the world.”
ah, the classic narrative-as-assertion. I love that one.
You don’t really get how that whole “capitalism” thing works do you?
Hint: Wealth isn’t a zero sum game.
Hint #2: All boats rise on a flowing tide.
Who the hell of George Keenan, and why should I buy his assertion as TRVTH?
And how can anyone who spouts that particular line of bullshit not admit they’re part of the “blame America first” crowd?
Tennyson thinks that due to his enlightened belief system, they would not behead him first, given the opportunity.
As George Keenan explained over a half century ago, “Amerikkkans are bad . . . mmmmkay?”
If we keep him at it long enough I see references to the United Fruit Company and stinger missiles blah mujahideen on the horizon.
And maybe Anaconda Copper.
I’m also glad that keenan correctly understood the attitudes and intentions behind the war on terror fifty years before its inception. real analytical foresight.
But … but … but … it is not a Leftist. No way. No how. It is an AmeriKKKa lovin’ patriot.
Yes all this Capitalism is terrible. Yet OBAMA wants it’s fruits.
Let’s call Capitalism the Golden Goose. Obama wants to take more from the bad rich guy. In other words Opie the dimwit wants to feed HIS GOVERNMENT with the bad rich guys money. So when there are no more bad rich guys…….who do Opies constituents work for??
HIM.
The amusing thing about the Keenan “explanation” is that those who buy into it probably consider themselves sophisticated, enlightened, free-thinking individuals. That they’ve bought into a piece of propaganda that is unfalsifiable and primarily focused on directing the audience towards always interpreting US action in a sinister, conspiratorial light never seems to dawn on them.
“The practice adopted by my government was comparatively wasteful and counter-productive.”
Except for the pesky fact that it worked.
Darn it!
And it’s rather sad how many ignorant people consider themselves well-educated.
Mr.Crawford are you questioning liberals patriotism??
“You are severely deceived. As George Keenan explained over a half-century ago, U.S. foreign policy is motivated principally by maintaining the disparity between U.S. wealth and power, on the one hand, and that of the rest of the world.”
Except that American capitalism raised the standard of living in the rest of the world.
Darn it!
Isn’t it just about time for Keyboard Cat to play Tennyson off?
Let’s review. GITMO made Muslims angry at us. Gitmo justified Muslims attacks on us. Hasn’t Opie just given Muslim terrorists the go ahead and justification to continue attacking us??
In higher education ignorance is rewarded with tenure, sadly.
“But let’s not pretend that foreign policy is borne of some manichean mission to protect good from evil.”
Except that American foreign policy, and war policy, keeps defeating evil.
Remember, except for ending slavery, fascism, nazism and communism, war has never solved anything.
Darn it!
So enlighten us Tennyson, what was the “proper†response to 9/11?
Same as proper response to inner-city crime: Order police stand down.
Apologize for police misbehavior.
Launch intensive study of poverty.
Create programs to address poverty.
Blame America when these fail.
No justice, no peace, you little Eichmanns.
Salt lick, you forgot Reparations and Burqa’s.
Hummm, Why you should probably not take a trolls assertion at face value.
[my emphasis]
Seems he actually accepted (and disagreed with) the concept that American foreign policy was about promoting good over evil.
Ric Locke said: “Is it significant? Not especially — certainly not comparatively. Most national and internation intelligence services readily agree that the U.S. “war on terror†has formented the rise of radicalism and increased threats of terror in the world.
You are gonna have to give us some cites on that. I have never seen any such statement, unless perhaps from the French on behalf of their hyperaggressive mercantilist agenda.”
Sure. Always important to have support for assertions — especially assertions that seem unusual, atypical, etc.
Let’s start with Michael Scheuer. Scheuer was a 22-year CIA officer, and head of the CIA station in charge of tracking Bin Laden. In his book, “Imperial Hurbis: Why The West Is Losing The War On Terror”, Scheuer makes a convincing, documented, informed argument that the specific actions taken by the Bush administration in response to 9/11 actually created conditions that radicalized otherwise moderate and apolitical elements within the Arab world — effectively mobilizing support of extremists who were, until the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, regarded as a dangerous fringe. Scheuer’s non-partisan analysis is not restricted to the Bush administration, as it extends back through the years.
Scheurer is, of course, hardly alone. In May 2005 (if memory serves) the CIA reported that “Iraq has become a magnet for Islamic militants similar to Soviet-occupied Afghanistan two decades ago and Bosnia in the 1990s.” The CIA concluded that “Iraq may prove to be an even more effective training ground for Islamic extremists than Afghanistan was in Al Qaeda’s early days, because it is serving as a real-world laboratory for urban combat.”
Or consider a Chatham House report from July 2005. There, a study concluded that “there is `no doubt’ that the invasion of Iraq has `given a boost to the al-Qaida network’ in propaganda, recruitment and fundraising,` while providing an ideal training area for terrorists”.
Or to take another example. Immediately after the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. military “discharged” U.N. inspectors who were monitoring various sites in Iraq. The sites were then left unprotected. Extensive looting followed, with supplies and technologies for the creation of biotoxins and liquid propellant fuels carried in trucks over the Jordanian border.
You missed the money part of that quote, lee:
That’s why he’s a star among the modern progressives.
I had to Google George Keenan; the name rang a bell, but details eluded me. Perhaps I’m just getting old.
It might be argued that Keenan served as a valuable counterweight to the “bomb now, avoid the rush” faction led by LeMay, but one of the reasons (perhaps the main reason) he lost influence after the Fifties is that he consistently misinterpreted what was going on, partly because of being at least somewhat captured by the Soviet system. At any rate, quoting him re: the War on Terror takes him completely out of context, thus compounding the basic error.
Regards,
Ric
As I recall, George Kennan was the father of the strategy of containment, whereby the U.S. sought to defeat the U.S.S.R., without direct military confrontation, based on the following principles:
1) Communism doesn’t work. It’s an economic non-starter. Left to its own devices, it will impoverish its people.
2) Communism, being a messianic creed, seeks to expand itself over the whole of the world.
Thus, preventing 2) contributes to 1). All that was needed was to wait them out.
Where this “explanation” comes from is beyond my ken. Perhaps he has Kennan confused with Smedley Butler.
Kristen said: “and now, it is morally superior to pursue the bottom line over the safety of our citizenry. wow.”
Oh, yes. Has been in many domains for a very long time.
Take, for example, traffic laws. It is substantially certain that by allowing vehicles to travel 65 mph on highways, there will in time be fatal accidents. One could, of course, lower the speed limits, thereby augmenting public safety. And that is done. But there comes a cost to protecting public safety. Commerce and impeded. Thus, we could virtually guarantee that no one would ever be killed in a motor vehicle accident if everyne were required to proceed at no greater than 5 mph. But no one would agree to that because it would compromise too many other areas of private and public life. And so, laws are enacted that weigh the costs of protecting human life against the benefits of greater facility in travel and commerce.
This is a single, very simple example. Others are easy to observe.
Lord Alfred Tennyson is just an underappreciated intellectual trapped amongst the ignorant racist homophobic jingoistic xenophobic homophobes in the Midwest, who would rather drink beer, ride their John Deere’s, play golf and baseball, and grill out than think of what they may have done to cause the terrorists hatred of AmeriKKKa.
Ah, the leftists standby…just makes stuff up and scream it until finally people tire of screaming back at you. Then declare victory.
Rob, I included that part in the quote for education purposes, but my point was to show Tennysons ignorance of his own assertions.
Like this:
Ya think the success of the 9/11 attack may have had something to do with the rise in extremism?(see Ric’s comment #117, re. success of bad behavior encourages more of it)
Keenan’s positions are merely emblematic of a prevailing sensibility within the establishment in Washington, and among mainstream intellectuals. Hiw insights make interesting reading, and we surely gain by attending to them. But one does not need the documentary record to understand the principles motivating the prevailing currents of U.S. foreign policy. That is readily deducible from the historical record.
JD said: “Lord Alfred Tennyson is just an underappreciated intellectual trapped amongst the ignorant racist homophobic jingoistic xenophobic homophobes in the Midwest, who would rather drink beer, ride their John Deere’s, play golf and baseball, and grill out than think of what they may have done to cause the terrorists hatred of AmeriKKKa.”
This is freakin’ hysterical! Thank you!!!
What a mendoucheous twatwaffle. Can you imagine this asshat at a Waffle House?
Comparing the WOT to the speed limit? Wow man.
lee said: “Ya think the success of the 9/11 attack may have had something to do with the rise in extremism?”
Well, not according the Scheuer and others. Still, we’re interested to hear your arguments. They do not appear to be persuasive, but you are invited to develop your point.
Wait till the first detainee’s beaten to death in a US prison, then listen to the Moonbat moaning.
Isn’t that the name of the latest Bjork album?
“Well, not according the Scheuer and others. Still, we’re interested to hear your arguments. They do not appear to be persuasive, but you are invited to develop your point.”
Here you go buddy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9yK0u-XH1M
From Cheney’s speech:
If you enjoyed it, I take it back. You are a fuckin’ twatwaffle of the highest order, and not worthy of a drop of sweat from the brow of the men and women that have served to make this country the country that it is. You piss on all things good with our KKKountry, and make apologies for those that would line you and your intolerant of intolerance ass up first in line for the rusty scimtar across the jugular.
lee said: “Seems he [Keenan] actually accepted (and disagreed with) the concept that American foreign policy was about promoting good over evil.”
Keenan was a realist who presupposed as proven the very conclusion his theory of U.S. foreign policy sought to establish.
Do you remember, your President Nixon?
Not so much really. All I know is he met Elvis and I went to his library south of here and it had really oddly low ceilings I thought and there was a cool silkscreen of a kitty cat. Lots about Alger Hiss, who was a dirty commie or something. Outside was nice cause you could walk through the cute little house he grew up in and it was a beautiful sunny day and there was a rose garden plus also lots of other gardening things – like the kind where the have plaques what explain what the plants are and stuff.
One word of caution though is that there were scads of those old ladies what wear purple with red hats and it can be frightening and sad.
And that differed from other people, how?
Kennan believed that “their kind of authoritarian government was a healthy and welcome alternative to inefficient parliamentary democracy.â€
Scratch a Leftist, find a fascist authoritarian. Every single time.
Tennyson, I still haven’t heard your ideas on what would have been the “proper” response to 9/11.
If by realist you mean Soviet cheerleader and gulag supporter.
also it’s cool if you like panda bears
I think he means we should follow Cornell West’s advice as to our response to 911 which involved playing some Jazz music.
lee – Lord Alfred would have bent over, grabbed his ankles, and begged them to use Astroglide.
Imagine how PISSED OFF MUZZLIMS will be when Opie stops buying their oil.
When they bomb the White House, I doubt Cheney will blame our “Independence from foreign oil” on it.
Sometimes you get gravitas from eating too much cheese, and that can rip things you really do not want.
What is interesting about Cheney is he is now rising in the polls by taking Obama on.
Mr. Pink said: “Here you go buddy.”
Yup. we’ve all seen the clip. That is not an argument, and it certainly does not establish convincing evidence in support of the proposition you appear to adopt.
You remind me of a city-slicker on vacation who drops a line in a lake, pulls up a catfish, then proclaims vehemently that the lake contains only catfish, where everyone who fishes the lake regularly knows it is full of trout, bass, walleye and sunfish.
Yeah JD, presented them with weakness and opportunity…
JD said: “You are a fuckin’ twatwaffle of the highest order, and not worthy of a drop of sweat from the brow of the men and women that have served to make this country the country that it is. You piss on all things good with our KKKountry, and make apologies for those that would line you and your intolerant of intolerance ass up first in line for the rusty scimtar across the jugular.”
I LOVE it! What grade are you in?
“Scheuer makes a convincing, documented, informed argument that the specific actions taken by the Bush administration in response to 9/11 actually created conditions that radicalized otherwise moderate and apolitical elements within the Arab world —…”
Just a guess here, but did he ignore the fact that al Queda and Baaathist dead-enders in Iraq radicalized the population there, and drove it into the arms of the Americans?
You know Neville Chamberlain quite forcefully argued in support of the policies that Tenny is advocating, addressing the grievances of aggressors, and those policies worked out very well indeed. You are exactly right Tenny what we need to do now is find a way to enact a modern day version of the Munich Agreement with terrorists like Bin Ladin and we can reap the rewards.
Tennyson said:””You remind me of a city-slicker on vacation who drops a line in a lake, pulls up a catfish, then proclaims vehemently that the lake contains only catfish, where everyone who fishes the lake regularly knows it is full of trout, bass, walleye and sunfish.””
Tennyson, you remind me of a fucking imbecile.
“In May 2005 (if memory serves) the CIA reported that “Iraq has become a magnet for Islamic militants similar to Soviet-occupied Afghanistan two decades ago and Bosnia in the 1990s.—
It’s called a honey trap.
How many of those Islamic militants lived to tell the tale?
Tennyson said: “I LOVE IT what grade are you in?””
Typical liberal imbecilic tripe. Tennyson are you gay or something??>
“Or consider a Chatham House report from July 2005. There, a study concluded that “there is `no doubt’ that the invasion of Iraq has `given a boost to the al-Qaida network’ in propaganda, recruitment and fundraising,` while providing an ideal training area for terroristsâ€.”
There was a beautiful al Queda recruitment poster that read “Visit Beautiful Iraq. And Die!”
It is not at all surprising that this barking Leftist Monibot borrows from a Poet Laureate, who by nearly all accounts, was an absentminded depressed wannabe writer who was bullied at school.
JD said: “Kennan believed that “their kind of authoritarian government was a healthy and welcome alternative to inefficient parliamentary democracy.â€
Scratch a Leftist, find a fascist authoritarian. Every single time.”
The proposition that Keenan was a “Leftist” (whatever that term is supposed to mean) is rather laughable. I suppose you also think the Khmer Rouge were soft on crime?
I don’t like Tennysons’ policies, so it’s okay if I kill him.
gus said: “Typical liberal imbecilic tripe. Tennyson are you gay or something??”
Uh . . . yes. Yes, I am. I am gay. That is quite right. Yes.
Khmer Rouge were pretty soft on their own, wot?
Oh, God. Not the “Iraq created terrorists line” again. We heard that for years, and ever heard how many European Muslims (but only rarely in the US were US Muslims discussed) made their way to Iraq.
What we didn’t hear — until last year — was that few, if any, made it back out.
gus said: “I don’t like Tennysons’ policies, so it’s okay if I kill him.”
Yes. Yes. It is okay.
I do wonder — do these people think we’ve not heard all this crap before?
We’ve heard it. We’ve seen the evidence that blows it out of the water. All you’re doing is demonstrating your own ignorance.
Rob Crawford said: “Oh, God. Not the “Iraq created terrorists line†again.”
Oh, God. Not the, “not the _______ line again”, line again.
“This is a single, very simple example. Others are easy to observe.”
as well as simple counterexamples. let’s compare the average economic potential of a single kidnapped child with the police and investigative power employed to locate him and detain his kidnapper.
there’s a simple delineator here: accidental/intent. the first is statistical, the second is not.
“Well, not according the Scheuer and others. Still, we’re interested to hear your arguments. They do not appear to be persuasive, but you are invited to develop your point.”
Wow, you’re a real supercilious twat, ain’t ya?
It’s the kind of mantra that becomes “real,” if you repeat it often enough.
Rob Crawford: “We’ve heard it. We’ve seen the evidence that blows it out of the water. All you’re doing is demonstrating your own ignorance.”
Yawn.
If Iraq created more terrorists, and for every terrorist we killed, x number were created, then there should be about 184,028,573,615,385,902 jihadis strolling around God’s green earth right about now. I suggest that we direct them all to Lord Alred Root Cause’s house, as he has some pulled pork BBQ he wouold like to share with them.
Tennyson,
Stop helping, please. I mean it. You’re killing me.
oh. like the kind where *they* have plaques what explain… can you imagine how cheesy and fascist and propagandy Barack Obama’s library is gonna be? Economy-trashing narcissistic feeb. I bet even the old ladies with the red hats give it a wide berth.
“Yup. we’ve all seen the clip. That is not an argument”
Actually it is an argument technically. When they “win” or attack us they celebrate and prance around and gain support. When they see pictures of terrorists that are caught hooded at Guatanamo kneeling in front of the infidel that just took over one of the biggest countries in the region in less than 3 weeks they do not celebrate and prance around do they?
The problem with arguing this is that neither one of us can prove the other wrong and it is a waste of time. I was just being flippant when I posted that link because I really do not think it can be proven one way or another why one of these psychos blows themselves up and I really do not care. Bin Ladin has written several books telling reasons why he wants to kill infidels you should go read them none of them involved Abu Gharib or Guatanamo however.
Tennyson,still waiting for your ideas on the “proper” response to 9/11…
N. O’Brain said: “Wow, you’re a real supercilious twat, ain’t ya?”
No. No, I am not.
No . . . wait.
Uh . . . I mean, yes. YES! I am. I am!
oooooh, “others”. what are their poll numbers like? I need to know before I decide to ignore any evidence and just go with what people that agree with me think.
“Keenan was a realist who presupposed as proven the very conclusion his theory of U.S. foreign policy sought to establish.”
I suppose that if you’re a realist, then you’re allowed to engage in a priori reasoning.
Seriously, you’re not helping. The people at MSNBC aren’t this stupid for heaven’s sake.
Mr. Pink said: “When they “win†or attack us they celebrate and prance around and gain support.”
Not sure who, specifically, you mean by “they”.
But one does not need the documentary record to understand the principles motivating the prevailing currents of U.S. foreign policy. That is readily deducible from the historical record.
See, this is the kind of comment that sounds intelligent until analyzed, at which point its contradictions ring out like a bruised gong. What “historical record” worth six sides of a damn pays no attention to a “documentary record”? How does one even differentiate the two?
Are we are left with is an assertion which is itself asserted to be true, as being so obvious as to not need proof. Well, allow me to retort:
The U.S. Government spent billions of dollars and thousands upon thousands of lives defending a heretofore unknown (to Americans) place called South Vietnam. George Kennan criticized this effort as intrusion upon a country where we have no commercial or cultural interest. The charge was substantially true, yet it continued, for years. Why?
Because we had to defeat communism, wherever it should threaten. That was how containment worked. They blockade Berlin, we airlift to Berlin. They support guerrillas in Greece, we support the government in Greece. They attack S. Korea, we defend S. Korea. And on and on.
This was, by the agreement of all, manifestly not a war for U.S. wealth dominance, but a war of the white hats against the black, a precisely Manichaean conflict. Yet it was the chief aim of our foreign policy for the better part of a decade.
So perhaps the gentleman would like to dig into that documentary/historical record and find a basis for his claim of mercantile U.S. Foreign Policy. A quote from Kennan would be nice, too.
Presupposing the conclusion as proven is the standard Leftist form of argument. It is one of TOTUS’s more effective tools. It is not really all that intellectually honest, but it works for them.
“Not sure who, specifically, you mean by “theyâ€.
Uh terrorist who else would I be talking about. You want to bring it down to the level of specific groups I would say Al Quada playing clips of 911 would be a great recruiting tool. They have been the only one to be able to bitch smack the mother of all infidels in a while, but again this is all conjecture.
also, we could all drive tanks and be safer, but they use too much gas according to Congress.
The people at MSNBC aren’t this stupid for heaven’s sake.
Oh, hell yes they are.
Andrew the Noisy said: “See, this is the kind of comment that sounds intelligent until analyzed, at which point its contradictions ring out like a bruised gong. What “historical record†worth six sides of a damn pays no attention to a “documentary recordâ€? How does one even differentiate the two?”
All documentary records are a part of history. But not all residues of history exist in documentary form. In any event, by “documentary record” I was referring to the internal stated department documentary record (planning study reports, proceedings, and the like). By “historical record” I mean other forms of evidence by which we are able to gain knowledge of the past.
Tell me this doesn’t sound like a leftist:
Maggie – If they will it to be so, we can have tanks that run on mulch, emit no evil CO2, and will reduce the deficit by half.
One “educated” by Chomsky, “The Peoples’ History of the United States” and the like.
Yeah, like we did in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor.
Andrew The Noisy said: “The U.S. Government spent billions of dollars and thousands upon thousands of lives defending a heretofore unknown (to Americans) place called South Vietnam”
The U.S. gov’t was “defending” Vietnam? That would make a cat laugh.
Andrew the Noisy – You made the mistake in assuming that a rational question would be met with anything other than nonsense from the resident Poet Laureate. pdbuttons writes far better prose than Tennyson, and does not make the mistake of being a mendoucheous twatwaffle.
and yet, they don’t. bastards.
So, let’s argue by analogy. Rapists hate women. They say they hate them because they dress like sluts. If the police go after rapists, it inflames rapist opinion against the society that the police represent, creating more rapists.
Short skirts are the root cause.
That might make a cat laugh, but not a sentient being.
It would be a wise policy to borrow a trillion or so from China to finance this civilian tank idea. It would save the economy I tells ya.
“All documentary records are a part of history. But not all residues of history exist in documentary form. In any event, by “documentary record†I was referring to the internal stated department documentary record (planning study reports, proceedings, and the like). By “historical record†I mean other forms of evidence by which we are able to gain knowledge of the past.”
This is, I suppose, fair enough. Though gaining knowledge of motivations without appeal to documentary records seems highly questionable to me.
I await your argument that Vietnam does not go a long way towards refuting Kennan’s so-called “explanation.”
kristan said: as well as simple counterexamples. let’s compare the average economic potential of a single kidnapped child with the police and investigative power employed to locate him and detain his kidnapper. there’s a simple delineator here: accidental/intent. the first is statistical, the second is not.”
Your example proves my point. Not every abduction is treated equally. Nor does every crime of intent receive the same degree of executive action. That is because there is always a decision to be made as to the costs and benefits involved.
The U.S. gov’t was “defending†Vietnam? That would make a cat laugh.
That made more than cats laugh at the time. Yet it was true. The quality, execution, and wisdom of that defense is a question for the ages. But yes, Virginia, that was our motive. If you find a better, argue the contrary. And by “argument” I do not mean “flippancy.”
And so it becomes a question of what the cost of freedom is. Bravo!
And that is a matter of interpretation, which is to say, valuation.
And also a matter of how you interpret the threat, the risks, and the rewards.
And here is where we differ, although we have access to the same information.
Ergo?
JD said: “mendoucheous twatwaffle”.
Hee Hee. That’s so funny.
Dan – We should ban women that do not wear skirts.
Tennyson, still waiting for your ideas on the “proper†response to 9/11.
Come on dude, you have all the answers, enlighten us.
And all along we thought it was Islamists, but the real danger has been CO2.
It is rare that I call people bad names around here, but you are rapidly approaching the line.
But please; enlighten us all on what happened in VietNam and why you believe that to be so funny.
Those South Vietnamese relatives of mine sure are a bunch of drooling idiots. How could they be so unaware of what was going on around them. I will just have them call the Poet Laureate so they can become informed. I would have the rest of their family call to, but they got killed.
JFK would spit in your face, Lord Alfred. Bear any burden, pay any price. He would laugh at your cost/benefit analysis.
Tennyson is starting to remind me of “a Phonetician in the time of Romans”.
“That made more than cats laugh at the time. Yet it was true. The quality, execution, and wisdom of that defense is a question for the ages. But yes, Virginia, that was our motive. If you find a better, argue the contrary. And by “argument†I do not mean “flippancy.â€
Okay. I’ll bite. If the U.S. was so interested in “defending” Vietnam, then why did it (1) refuse to recognize Vietnam’s independence after the Japanese were defeated in 1945, while (2) throwing its diplomatic, financial, and military support behind the French who quite openly moved to re-establish Vietnam as a French colony?
Incidentally, the U.S. “defense” of Vietnam was executed with considerable success. The country was sufficiently destroyed and a very important lesson was taught to other countries in the region.
JFK=Neo-con
I don’t know. Who was President in 1945? Some Rethuglican, I’m sure.
Lord Alfred comes from the same school of thought as Olbergasm and MadCow.
“The U.S. gov’t was “defending†Vietnam? That would make a cat laugh.”
But not the North Vietnamese Army which invaded South Viet Nam.
We killed too many of them.
FDR=Neo-con
Oh my God!
It’s monkyboy.
I’ve been wasting my time debating monkyboy!
The good ole’ US of A sure does like to kill them some brown people, huh Tennyson?
okay, I’m laughing now. ;D
“But please; enlighten us all on what happened in VietNam and why you believe that to be so funny.”
In 25 words or less, right?
At least now I know his idea of the proper response to 9/11.
balloon fense and mile high dirt berms.
Shall the balloon fence and the mile-high dirt berm be soon to follow?
“And so it becomes a question of what the cost of freedom is. Bravo! And that is a matter of interpretation, which is to say, valuation. And also a matter of how you interpret the threat, the risks, and the rewards. And here is where we differ, although we have access to the same information. Ergo?”
Keep going!
The Communists had the same kind of millenialist teleology around their ideology as the Islamists, to wit: we will bury you. It was important to take that seriously then, and it’s important to take it seriously now.
Leftists spend a lot of time and effort euphemizing what they say and apologizing for it.
Oooo, that’s eerie
lee – great minds …
Tennyson – Do you ever get embarassed?
I mean, has anyone told Obama our policies can’t change?
Tennyson, I don’t know how they make insurance adjusters out in Iowa but any insurance adjuster that talked that much leftist nonsense and worked for the companies I represent on a daily basis would be run out of said company on a rail, possibly with a large paper mache head attached to the end.
Nah I thought “addressing the root problems” is what follows. Then the disavowel of anything negative that would come from “addressing the root problems”, then change the subject to Vietnam. I could be wrong though is that before or after the balloon fence I am so confused.
Okay. I’ll bite. If the U.S. was so interested in “defending†Vietnam, then why did it (1) refuse to recognize Vietnam’s independence after the Japanese were defeated in 1945, while (2) throwing its diplomatic, financial, and military support behind the French who quite openly moved to re-establish Vietnam as a French colony?
Incidentally, the U.S. “defense†of Vietnam was executed with considerable success. The country was sufficiently destroyed and a very important lesson was taught to other countries in the region.
You bite badly. Again, I am not arguing the quality, execution, or wisdom of the defense of South Vietnam. I am arguing its motive. And one more time, the motive was to prevent South Vietnam from becoming another Communist satellite.
That is why its independence was not recognized in 1945, because said independence was declared by a Communist who had just finished ruthlessly eliminating or bullying into submission all nationalists who were not Communists.
That is why we aided the French in re-establishing colonial control, because that was seen as preferable to Soviet/Chinese colonial control. Because of the Communism.
Now, each one of these decisions may have been unwise. They may even have been counter-productive to our purpose (as a great many other things we did there certainly were). This matters not a tinker’s damn to what our purpose was.
So unless you can come up with some kind of United Rice Trust conspiracy, I don’t see how you can argue that the Vietnam War was a wealth-grubbing power-play of the Smedley Butler variety, instead of the crusade it was.
Tennyson, what do you believe are the root causes of terrorism that need to be addressed?
“But not the North Vietnamese Army which invaded South Viet Nam. We killed too many of them.”
The “north/south” distinction was a creature of convenience, designed as a temporary division as a prelude to a national election. When it was clear that the “wrong side” had a whale and the U.S. supported client had a minnow, the U.S. gov’t promptly intervened and otherwise concocted to call off the elections (which is a standard operation whenever democratic elections pose the threat of coming out the wrong way — something Henry Kissinger candidly acknowledged).
The U.S. subsequently invaded the south, which is where the war was substantially waged. The idea was to remove the popular base for the indigenous resistance to the Diem regime. Some of the groupings in the south were sympathetic with and allied with the Viet Minh. Others, not so much. But they all, by and large, wanted a unified Vietnam with the U.S. and French out. Very little of this had anything to do with the Soviet threat (as is also candidly recognized in the early pages of the Pentagon Papers).
“Again, I am not arguing the quality, execution, or wisdom of the defense of South Vietnam.”
The quality of the war on America’s part was outstanding. We won the war on the ground, but lost it here in America.
For example, after the Tet offensive, there was no more Viet Cong infrastructure capable of carrying on the war, they were all dead dead dead. It ALL fell on the NVA.
260
Didn’t Obama say it was poverty, hopelessness, and injustice? Because nothing stops a terrorist from blowing himself up more than being hopeful that he can get 73 virgins if he stays alive.
“You bite badly. Again, I am not arguing the quality, execution, or wisdom of the defense of South Vietnam. I am arguing its motive. And one more time, the motive was to prevent South Vietnam from becoming another Communist satellite.”
Nonsense. If you read the Pentagon Papers, it is clear that, try as they might, the U.S. could not establish any “soviet-connection” until years after Vietnam declared its independence in Sept. 1945.
The idea that Vietnam would become an ally with Communist China is absurd. The Vietnamese and Chinese had been bitter enemies for centuries.
Cost/benefit analysis, and a sense of scale. C’mon, lee, pay attention to the soopergeenyus.
“Tennyson, what do you believe are the root causes of terrorism that need to be addressed?”
Well, WHOSE terrorism?
“The “north/south†distinction was a creature of convenience,…”
Not to the South Vietnamese people who were murdered when the commies took over Hue.
“…designed as a temporary division as a prelude to a national election.”
Which the commies wouldn’t participate in because they’d have lost. Once a fascist thug, always a fascist thug.
“The U.S. subsequently invaded the south….”
Ummm, sure, whatev.
“…which is where the war was substantially waged”
Because that’s where the NVA and their Viet Cong puppets were.
“Very little of this had anything to do with the Soviet threat…”
Except for that huge naval base they used, thanks to the local commies.
“The idea that Vietnam would become an ally with Communist China is absurd. The Vietnamese and Chinese had been bitter enemies for centuries.”
Except for the fact that they were, you know, allies.
Reading comment 261 makes me think the bolded part above means “making shit up”.
“Well, WHOSE terrorism?”
The Islamofascists.
“Reading comment 261 makes me think the bolded part above means “making shit upâ€.”
I have seen little evidence that anything makes you think.
Soflee, soflee, guys.
Tennyson is merely arguing from “realpolitik”, which friend Keenan thought the only way to do it. Realpolitik is really quite Rumsfeldian: you do diplomacy with the Governments you have. The only difference between him and, say, Disraeli is that he doesn’t agree that the United States has a right to use realpolitik to its own advantage.
Our contention, on the other hand (or at least mine), is that realpolitik is in fact the “root cause” he’s searching for. Osama bin Laden, for instance, built al-Qaeda on the root of the Islamist Brotherhood, which in turn was and remains a reaction by Muslims against the tyrants and dictators realpolitik by its very premises supports and encourages.
As for the charge that US policy is driven by an attempt to remain top dog, that’s nothing more than the standard Leftoid “cultural or economic imperialism” model beloved of crypto-Stalinists the world around. It isn’t true, and has never been. What actually happens is that our way works and others do not (or don’t work as well), and people whose ideology declares without allowing questioning that their system will and must work need an excuse for their failure.
Viet Nam — there were a whole lot of mistakes made during and after WWII, and not all of them were American. If I had a time machine and only one chance to use it, I would seriously consider buttonholing Ho Chi Minh when he visited the US in 1945, to try to convince him to present himself as an admirer of Jefferson with Social Democratic leanings rather than as a Soviet-client communist. It might well have made it palatable for the US not to try to support French pretentions to imperialism.
I still say, though, that the single most damaging decision made in the world during that period was the Brits excusing themselves for no longer being able to support the Empire by putting it about that Gandhi won by pacifist methods.
Regards,
Ric
Tennyson – I should have been more precise. What do you believe are the root causes that drive Al Qaeda and similar groups in actions such as the 9/11 attacks?
“Our contention, on the other hand (or at least mine), is that realpolitik is in fact the “root cause†he’s searching for. Osama bin Laden, for instance, built al-Qaeda on the root of the Islamist Brotherhood, which in turn was and remains a reaction by Muslims against the tyrants and dictators realpolitik by its very premises supports and encourages.”
I partially agree (though I would not call “realpolitik” a “root cause”). Antagonism to U.S. foreign policy has been, quite often, a reaction against U.S. support for authoritarin dictators — including Saddam, who was reviled by Sunni Iraqis, in particular. Of course, this all begs the question of why the U.S. gov’t — the government, mind you, not necessarily U.S. citizens (who remain largely uniformed on such matters — so systematically supports authoritarian regimes (including assassinating elected officials, rigging elections, etc.), even now that Soviet communism has been dead for at least 20 years (in truth, since the 60s)
Nonsense. If you read the Pentagon Papers, it is clear that, try as they might, the U.S. could not establish any “soviet-connection†until years after Vietnam declared its independence in Sept. 1945.
The idea that Vietnam would become an ally with Communist China is absurd. The Vietnamese and Chinese had been bitter enemies for centuries.
Ho Chi Minh participated in the Fifth Comintern Congress in June 1924, was in Moscow in 1923-24, 1927, 1933-1938, and served as an advisor to Chinese Communist forces from 1938-1941. I think I can be forgiven for construing that such makes a man a Communist and an ally of Moscow, whatever the Pentagon Papers does or does not say.
And despite your assertion that Chinese and Vietnamese are less than bosom chums, in 1950 Ho met with Stalin and Mao in Moscow, where it was agreed that China would be the chief supplier of the Viet Minh. So there’s your connection.
But let’s say that the U.S. Government didn’t yet know about all of these shenanigans. So our motive was what, exactly? Rice tariffs?
Vietnam was mostly a lot before Nixon but after the Golden Age of Radio and you had color tv a lot at the end of the war but hardly not at all at the beginning of the war and then Walter Cronkite was all insisty that America would end the war not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy and who did the best they could. Meanwhile lots of people were enjoying the thrilling adventures of the crew of the wayward Spindrift, trapped and struggling to survive in the totalitarian nightmare world of the Land Of The Giants, which you can now see on Hulu here if you wanted to see if maybe you could find an apropos metaphor.
The root causes are that AmeriKKKa is a terrorist nation. It already told us that.
“As for the charge that US policy is driven by an attempt to remain top dog, that’s nothing more than the standard Leftoid “cultural or economic imperialism†model beloved of crypto-Stalinists the world around. It isn’t true, and has never been. What actually happens is that our way works and others do not (or don’t work as well), and people whose ideology declares without allowing questioning that their system will and must work need an excuse for their failure.”
The foregoing statement suffers from a rash of assumptions. For example, the writer appears to assume that anyone who acknowledges the historical existence of imperialism must be some sort of communist or leftist or some other bad word. If that’s true, then I guess my Amish neighbor (who makes a handsome proft as a dairy farmer) is a communist, leftist, etc.
Another assumption is that “us” and “we” equal “what the U.S. gov’t does”.
Yet another assumption is that there is some kind of “system” that “works”. Such a proposition may work as a talking point on a tv show, but it is hopeless vague as any sort of viable basis to discussing specific national and international affairs.
“I partially agree (though I would not call “realpolitik†a “root causeâ€). Antagonism to U.S. foreign policy has been, quite often, a reaction against U.S. support for authoritarin dictators — including Saddam, who was reviled by Sunni Iraqis, in particular. Of course, this all begs the question of why the U.S. gov’t — the government, mind you, not necessarily U.S. citizens (who remain largely uniformed on such matters — so systematically supports authoritarian regimes (including assassinating elected officials, rigging elections, etc.), even now that Soviet communism has been dead for at least 20 years (in truth, since the 60s)”
Where to begin.
First of all, Saddam was a Sunni. It was the Shi’ites who disliked him (well, and the Marsh Arabs, and anyone whose daughters Uday raped, etc).
Second, we “supported” Saddam because he was the Ayatollah’s enemy. There. You got us. Guilty. Another “our son of a bitch” type. You’ll note that this status did not save him from getting his hand swatted in 1991 and his country taken from him in 2003, despite the fact that the Iranian regime is much the same as it was. Interesting.
And I really really need to see some basis for the assertion that Communism has been dead since the 60’s.
Ace: I have got a fever and the only fix is more Cheney!
That’s when the Russians stopped trying it and the New Left had to take up the baton.
That, sir, is either a bald-faced lie, a particularly unfortunate typo, or a confession of ignorance bordering on imbecility. The Ba’ath (and remains) entirely the creature of non-Kurd Sunni; Muqtada al-Sadr’s popularity derives from his father’s (and brothers’) work against the Ba’ath Hussein regime, whose goons killed everybody but Mookie to reduce the danger to themselves.
As for why the US supports so many dictators — you can’t have it both ways. Realpolitik deals only with the Governments that actually exist; that’s what the “real” part of the German word means. Keenan, whose words you are quoting us as Revelation, was a major supporter of realpolitik and therefore of dictators.
There are those of us who think much of that derives from simple laziness on the part of diplomats. In a dictatorship, the diplomats have nice clear lines of authority they can deal with and know exactly whose parties they should attend. Messier polities, like democracies and republics, require that the striped-pants set exert themselves to stay on top of things, and allow the risk that a newly-elected Government might resent the kid-glove treatment awarded the Old Regime.
Regards,
Ric
BZZZZT
Oh, I’m sorry, but Saddam was from a Sunni tribe and the Baath party was dominated by Sunnis. You meant to say Shi’ite rather than Sunni.
Ten points will be deducted from your score and a chocolate covered oil slick will be spread on your swimming pool. Thanks for playing!
Don’t know what you mean by “leftâ€. I’m an insurance underwriter in Iowa. I don’t belong to any policital organizations, unless that includes the Rotary Club!
The moment you typed that I knew exactly what you are. The lowest for of leftist maggot there is. Thanks for not disappointing in the rest of the thread. I so hate being wrong.
The real question is, how are we going to defend against a Chinese shipping container invasion in Los Angles, or better yet, how to address the root cause of Chinese rage so we can prevent such a thing in the first place.
“What do you believe are the root causes that drive Al Qaeda and similar groups in actions such as the 9/11 attacks”
Well, that depends on what acts you are discussing. As CIA analysts have observe, Bin Laden’s words and deeds are quite closely correlated. Bin laden explained shortly following 9/11 that he first “got the idea” (to adopt a crass expression) when he observed U.S. planes shelling a high-rise hotel in Lebanon. He has stated (rightly or wrongly) that he perceives the U.S. gov’t as interposing its will by force into the affairs of the Muslim work, and in particular occupying the “holiest of holy lands” (or words to that effect).
Interviews of the London bombers in the summer of 2005 (I think), carried out by British intelligence, revealed that the volunteers expressed a sense of outrage, fury and helplessness upon seeing the U.S. invade and occupy Iraq, seeing family members and friends maimed, killed, made to suffer, etc., and that they felt they needed “to do something”.
huh, and here I’ve been told my government is “of the people”
“The foregoing statement suffers from a rash of assumptions.”
Whereas your posts just give me a rash.
the writer appears to assume that anyone who acknowledges the historical existence of imperialism must be some sort of communist or leftist or some other bad word.
The historical existence of imperalism is easy to argue. The motive of imperialism, especially as a descriptor of the entirety of U.S. foreign policy, is harder, as I’ve yet to see you actually make it. Those that do so have the tendency to be either a) leftists, b) enemies of America, or c) someone who absorbed the teachings of a) or b) without independent verification.
Not exactly “johnny on the spot” am I?
“Another assumption is that “us†and “we†equal “what the U.S. gov’t doesâ€.”
You’re a Truther, aren’t you?
Tennyson – thank you for the reply. What specific actions would you recommend we take to address the root cause motivations of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda?
Also, I’m still waiting for a motive for our misadventure in Vietnam that was not Defending South Vietnam from Communism.
“The moment you typed that I knew exactly what you are. The lowest for of leftist maggot there is. Thanks for not disappointing in the rest of the thread. I so hate being wrong.”
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. If you are calling me a liar, then you are wrong. Go ahead and ask me about insurance: ISO forms, endorsements, Acord forms, valued policy law, banker’s bonds, risk assessment, 1st party, 3rd party, Marine and Cargo, UM, UIM, HO, conditions precedent to coverage . . .
I’m here to help.
Guys, lay off the thor-isms. This gent won’t be run off that way.
who wants to run him off?
“The historical existence of imperalism is easy to argue. The motive of imperialism, especially as a descriptor of the entirety of U.S. foreign policy, is harder, as I’ve yet to see you actually make it. Those that do so have the tendency to be either a) leftists, b) enemies of America, or c) someone who absorbed the teachings of a) or b) without independent verification.”
Can’t speak to your assumptions.
“The motive of imperialism, especially as a descriptor of the entirety of U.S. foreign policy, is harder, as I’ve yet to see you actually make it.”
Nor would I make it. That said, there are recurring patterns in U.S. foreign policy — from the earliest days of empire building.
LOOK! Over there! Shiny!
Bullshit. Imperialism did exist, and for a long time; that’s why we call it the Roman “Empire”. The question is whether or not US policies constitute “imperialism”. It is quite true that in the latter part of the 19th Century and very early 20th, the US dabbled in imperialism — all the cool kids were doing it, after all. But at least since WWII, US policy (however misguided) has been anti-imperialist. That’s why Truman fired MacArthur, dammit.
Again, you can’t have it both ways. If you’re going to blame “us” for mopery, dopery, and skulduggery along the spaceways, you’re going to have to define “you” and “us”.
Bullshit. A system works if it preserves and enriches itself and its members. A system fails if it results in weakness and poverty. No Leveler-philosophy-based system has ever worked in that sense, and we have a long long long list of such failures — Christ on a chrome crutch, the story of Naboth’s Garden is in the Old Testament.
Regards,
Ric
Hey Poet- How were the London bombers outraged by family members being maimed and killed in Iraq when they were all Pakistanis? Just wondering…
Tennyson, you’re simply a fucking pussy. I’m sure you knew that already. Pillow biting sissy.
As George Keenan explained over a half-century ago, U.S. foreign policy is motivated principally by maintaining the disparity between U.S. wealth and power, on the one hand, and that of the rest of the world. Now, again, you may like that or not like that. But let’s not pretend that foreign policy is borne of some manichean mission to protect good from evil. That stuff may be appropiate for junion high school civics classes, but it is not the basis of a foreign policy.
So when you’re talking about imperialism, and it’s role in U.S. foreign policy (those “recurring patterns”), you aren’t talking about this.
Sorry, but I no longer have any idea what you’re talking about.
And I’m still waiting for an explanation of how Vietnam was not that Manichaean mission you refer to.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. If you are calling me a liar, then you are wrong. Go ahead and ask me about insurance: ISO forms, endorsements, Acord forms, valued policy law, banker’s bonds, risk assessment, 1st party, 3rd party, Marine and Cargo, UM, UIM, HO, conditions precedent to coverage . . .
I’m here to help.
Cute. I don’t think anyone doubts you hold a mind-numbingly boring job in Goat’s Anus Gulch, Iowa. But just like the moonbat leftists who, say, call the CSPAN “moderate” line only to vomit mindless agitprop, your intention in revealing bits of yourself and in suggesting you’re not of the left was to paint a dishonest picture. It’s sort of a pathological impulse among proggies to be manipulative, but it’s easy to spot.
“Also, I’m still waiting for a motive for our misadventure in Vietnam that was not Defending South Vietnam from Communism”
In the breakup of the colonial world, U.S. policymakers very correctly perceived that in order to continue to maximize the disparity, U.S. businesses required ready and continued access to foreign markets. Such markets could be secured by fostering a kind of political stability that favored the influx of U.S. investment, with a corresponding outflow of raw materials and the product of cheap labor. Countries that resisted that kind of environment were at odds with the objectives of the U.S. gov’t and business community. The real enemy was not communism, but rather, radical nationalism. Vietnam was poised to go its own way, even if at some point potentially positioned to strike an alliance with the Soviets. The U.S. gov’t perceived that a Vietnam under French colonial rule was better than a radical nationalist Vietnam that threatened to serve as an example to other post-colonial countries in the region who might draw the wrong conclusions. (Think: Dean Acheson.) When the French proved incapable of holding off the Viet Mihn, the U.S. directly invaded, most dramatically in 1962.
If the US and other developed countries hadn’t moved production to these countries, how great would the technological and other disparities between the US and them be?
“Bullshit. A system works if it preserves and enriches itself and its members. A system fails if it results in weakness and poverty.”
The “system” you describe is built on a ruthless imperial policy that undermines democracy and independence anywhere enrichment of the imperial society is opposed. Anyway, the wheels are presently coming off, in part, because the state is losing its ability (notwithstanding its enormous military power) to control foreign economies.
Let’s cap and trade moonbat responses.
Tenny you had me at “WHOSE terrorism”. :)
Dipshit.
“The “system†you describe is built on a ruthless imperial policy that undermines democracy and independence anywhere enrichment of the imperial society is opposed.”
Socialist?
Cute. I don’t think anyone doubts you hold a mind-numbingly boring job in Goat’s Anus Gulch, Iowa. But just like the moonbat leftists who, say, call the CSPAN “moderate†line only to vomit mindless agitprop, your intention in revealing bits of yourself and in suggesting you’re not of the left was to paint a dishonest picture. It’s sort of a pathological impulse among proggies to be manipulative, but it’s easy to spot.”
I don’t watch tv and haven’t done so in at least two decades. “of the left” ??? Again,I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. I don’t belong to a single political organization, don’t donate to Save The Whales or Bloggers for Peace or any other such group. I used to subscribe to the Financial Times, but found it hard to keep up.
I think you are making some weird assumptions. That’s a shame.
I knew I’d seen this guy before.
Tennyson: My question may have gotten lost in the comments that followed – what specific actions would your recommend that the United States take to address the root cause motivations of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda?
“Dipshit.”
I usually don’t do this sort of thing (it’s too easy), but . . .
I believe you may have me confused with your spouse.
““The “system†you describe is built on a ruthless imperial policy that undermines democracy and independence anywhere enrichment of the imperial society is opposed.â€
Socialist?”
Yup. Socialism for the rich. Free markets for the poor.
“The “system†you describe is built on a ruthless imperial policy that undermines democracy and independence anywhere enrichment of the imperial society is opposed.â€
Tenny just to let you know because you do not subscribe to any political parties that you might want to fix this to read “The “system†you describe is built on capitalism that undermines democracy and independence anywhere enrichment of capitalism is opposed.â€
Tennyson is a libtard. When beaten in a debate he changes course. That’s why I have no problem ripping him personally. He’s a shit head and phony. And he knows it.
“Your example proves my point. Not every abduction is treated equally. Nor does every crime of intent receive the same degree of executive action. That is because there is always a decision to be made as to the costs and benefits involved.”
you self-contradict.
your initial claim was that the cost/benefit analysis should be entirely economic in origin (that we should compare the potential effect of realistic terrorist attacks with the material cost of the prosecution of the GWOT).
my example (kidnapping and response) openly contradicts any such [purely economic] analysis, by design. turning around and saying “well, I meant cost/benefit from a variety of perspectives..” is an act of deceit. particularly when you disregarded any such deviation w.r.t. the GWOT.
—
enough. self-contradiction and reasoning-by-presumption are the realm of madness.
I am kinda agreeing with you gus after seeing this standard deflection.
“Yup. Socialism for the rich. Free markets for the poor.”
It has been mouthed by many socialist before him in defense of socialism for all.
ah. happyfeet! paging happyfeet!
Some people wanted to have trolls again, they got their wish.
I think you are making some weird assumptions. That’s a shame.
You’re even worse than I thought. Own your ideology, sparky.
Bah, what a farrago of nonsense. I realize that it’s Teh Official Narrative®, but it’s still bullshit.
Bah. Post-WWII, US “planners” (to suggest that such a thing existed as an organized group is dumbshit thinking from the start) realized that in order to achieve American levels of prosperity, a society needed to adopt (at least some of) American procedures — but that such adoption was not possible in places where education levels and Governmental structures supporting such procedures did not exist. Simply building factories in, say, Surinam would not turn those places into 1950s Detroit — that didn’t work for the Russians, either, BTW; do you know what “GAZ” stands for?
If economic imperialism had been the goal, the Marshall Plan would never have been proposed. It would have been much better to simply stifle European attempts at reindustrialization, keeping them at the strictly-consumer level. The historical record you’re so fond of disproves your assertion, sir.
Countries and polities that could not support industrialization at that point in time needed to work up to it. Accordingly, the US has since WWII alternated between allowing and positively encouraging outposts of industrialization, especially for lower-tech items, on the ground that such would serve as teaching structures. [See: Postwar Japan]
Which is, of course, why Soviet tank columns moved in to so many countries, especially in Eastern Europe. Jus’ supportin’ that radical nationalism, suh.
Ho Chi Minh’s resume, posted above, gives that one the lie.
Bullshit. Ho was explicitly and self-declaredly a Communist who sought (and got) support from both the USSR and Mao. He got it, too. See above, as mentioned.
The United States never “invaded” Viet Nam, south or north. The American military presence — in 1962, consisting of JFK-sent “advisors” — was entirely at the invitation of the then Government of South Viet Nam. (Of course, “radical nationalism” is only allowed when the “nationalists” involved are Levelers of some persuasion, during that period dependents of the USSR).
“your initial claim was that the cost/benefit analysis should be entirely economic in origin (that we should compare the potential effect of realistic terrorist attacks with the material cost of the prosecution of the GWOT).”
Come down. I did not say that cost/benefit “should be entirely economic in origin”. (Not all costs or benefits are economic.) I suggested that from a cost/benefit analysis POV, the so-called war on terror (which, incidentally, was re-declared by GWBush; it was originally declared by President Reagan) is being wage inefficiently.
Your example demonstrates that even in the face of a single abduction, there are still limits to which society is willing to go to find the victim and bring the perpetrator to justice. For example, the governor does not order martial law and call every state police officer to get involved in the case. Why? Because the benefits of doing so (finding the victim; capturing the perp) are far outweighed by the costs (other crimes are committed in the absence of police vigilance, and go uninvestigated).
In the breakup of the colonial world, U.S. policymakers very correctly perceived that in order to continue to maximize the disparity, U.S. businesses required ready and continued access to foreign markets. Such markets could be secured by fostering a kind of political stability that favored the influx of U.S. investment, with a corresponding outflow of raw materials and the product of cheap labor.
Which explains why we set up so many factories in and imported so many raw materials from Vietnam. Or it would if that had, in fact, happened.
Countries that resisted that kind of environment were at odds with the objectives of the U.S. gov’t and business community. The real enemy was not communism, but rather, radical nationalism.
Ooh, radical nationalism! And pray, what does the “radical” in “radical nationalism” mean? Does it mean “socialist”? Could we not say so?
So the reason Ho wacked as many of the other Nationalists in Hanoi as he could was due to their insufficient nationalism, yes?
Vietnam was poised to go its own way, even if at some point potentially positioned to strike an alliance with the Soviets.
Oh, please. I am supposed to believe that despite Ho’s continuous relationship with the Soviets, from the 1920’s forward, that his alliance with the U.S.S.R and China was merely one of convenience? How does one argue this with a straight face?
The U.S. gov’t perceived that a Vietnam under French colonial rule was better than a radical nationalist Vietnam that threatened to serve as an example to other post-colonial countries in the region who might draw the wrong conclusions.
Because, you know, we couldn’t possibly do business with independent countries. That never happens. Whereas our overseas trade with French Colonies? Vitally important!
(Think: Dean Acheson.) When the French proved incapable of holding off the Viet Mihn, the U.S. directly invaded, most dramatically in 1962.
And by “invade” you mean…what exactly? The Strategic Hamlet program was set up in ’61. Kennedy had 16,000 military personnel in-country when he was assassinated, up from 900 in 1961. The French shipped out in ’55. I’m not following.
The “system†you describe is built on a ruthless imperial policy that undermines democracy and independence anywhere enrichment of the imperial society is opposed.
Tennyson, you just said that you would NOT ascribe “imperialism” as a motive. Here you do so.
Pick an argument and stick with it, yes?
“Post-WWII, US “planners†(to suggest that such a thing existed as an organized group is dumbshit thinking from the start)”
You are incorrect.
http://www.state.gov/s/p/
Tennyson, you have some interesting ideas and a unique perspective to offer here, but rather than debate the Vietnam War with you, I’m more interested in the present. What would you recommend that the United States do to address the root cause motivations of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda?
“Ooh, radical nationalism! And pray, what does the “radical†in “radical nationalism†mean? Does it mean “socialistâ€?”
I have no idea what the term “socialist” means in the foregoing sentence. But putting that aside, suppose the answer is “yes”. If one is committed to democracy and independence, shouldn’t the citizens of a country be permitted to decide whether they wish to adopt a “socialist” economy, just as they should be free to adopt a so-called “free market” economy?
There are days when Trollhammer is indispensable. This is one of those days.
Obama argued with the NYT: Socialist? Moi?
Hunh? You’re going to point me at a State Department Working Group and claim it means something? You are deluded, sir, largely I think by present conditions. Believe it or not, there was a period (quite a long one, in fact) when General Motors and Chrysler didn’t have to clear either their marketing plans or what and where they intended to manufacture with the President. To the limited extent that State, or the Government in general, was relevant to the process, it was perceived entirely as a barrier, mostly by all parties concerned including those in other countries.
I repeat: Tell me what “GAZ” stands for and sketch the events surrounding.
Regards,
Ric
I have no idea what the term “socialist†means in the foregoing sentence. But putting that aside, suppose the answer is “yesâ€. If one is committed to democracy and independence, shouldn’t the citizens of a country be permitted to decide whether they wish to adopt a “socialist†economy, just as they should be free to adopt a so-called “free market†economy?
Why, yes, old sport, they sure can. The French and Swedes have achieved much in this regard, all without being on the receiving ends of B-52’s.
But when the socialists attempting to set up socialism are receiving aid, training, weapons, etc, from the number one imperialist communist state on the globe, would you call that a choice freely made? Or would you call it something else?
“If one is committed to democracy and independence, shouldn’t the citizens of a country be permitted to decide whether they wish to adopt a “socialist†economy, just as they should be free to adopt a so-called “free market†economy?”
Well yes in a “democracy” they would be able too. Good thing we live in a Constitutional based Representative Republic. Also you might want to look into the whole “citizen” thing when debating socialism. They do not have free citizens in their system.
BTW who the hell comes on a political blog like this and will not claim an ideology, or even left/right?
Lord Alfred – Can one truly be committed to democracy, independence, and socialism?
“just as they should be free to adopt a so-called “free market†economy?â€
Love the use of “so-called” there. Where did you get linked here from man DK or DemUnderground?
“I suggested that from a cost/benefit analysis POV, the so-called war on terror (which, incidentally, was re-declared by GWBush; it was originally declared by President Reagan) is being wage inefficiently.”
on the basis of an economic metric (cosean analysis).
—
of course, in the kidnapping example, we have testability. you could conceivably have different pursuit strategies in different regions: some with the full investigative routine currently employed, and some with minimal police follow-up. you could then measure the degree of cost/benefit including all the sociological models you wouldn’t have a clue how to model.
we don’t have that luxury w.r.t the GWOT. which means that some sort of abstract discussion of its prosecution is inherently limited; it’s “obvious” points, in fact not-so-obvious.
—
simply put, no one is in a good position to model the growth or decline of terrorism as a function of our government’s response. the only sure point in this discussion is, rather than hearsay and dressed-up-narrative-masqueraded-as-data, death is final.
—
a historical corollary: what would the japanese claim as their reason for bombing pearl harbor, circa 1941? what sort of effects could we have expected, say, had we lifted oil restrictions? how would those effects compare to those observed around 1960 or so?
Its inherent ability to confirm all myths and beliefs about Leftist mmonbat trolls is incredible. As is it mendoucheousness.
Somebody who holds an ideology strongly and wants to obfuscate it.
Regards,
Ric
It does not claim an ideology because we pegged it as a Leftist from the get-go.
I think I shall go home. See you lot later.
“What would you recommend that the United States do to address the root cause motivations of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda?”
This is a great question. And I suggest that it does not have any easy answers. One thing I have observed for the past eight years is that the question is very rarely even raised in establishment circles. There is a lesson in that, in itself.
In the case of Bin Laden, I would suggest that we think about how and why it is that certain conditions foster the rise of authoritarian, radical religious fundamentalism, and what we can do to combat those conditions. Critically, we should consider the ways in which U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has supported repressive, authoritarian regimes, and undermined democracy and independence. Naturally, we are not responsible for the actions of others, but only our own actions. So, again, in the case of Bin Laden, I would ask how we can foster strong connections with democratic forces in the Middle East and elsewhere. Typically, the U.S. gov’t does not do that. Instead, it uses the Middle East as a resource, imposing its political will by force if necessary, by a client government (if that works), by creating destabilization when that is necessary, and restoring stability when the time is right (witness the support for Saadam in 1982, when Iraq was taken off the list of “states sponsoring terrorism”, so that it could be provided technologies and weapons to use to attack Iran). That sort of thing engenders a reaction — in some cases, a violent reaction, particularly when coupled with the presence of U.S. military dominance.
Now, obviously there’s no guarantee that we can eliminate criminal behavior entirely. And it would be wrong to construe any of this as a cry to call off the need to continue the “police work” in bringing the perpetrators of 9/11 and other such crimes to justice.
But it is a defeatism of reason (and experience) to believe that the only way of addressing adversity is, simply and solely, by seeking to liquidate “the enemy”.
Orwell speaks eloquently on this point in Nineteen Eight-Four, when O’Brien tells Winston that the mistake of the great authoritarian and totalitarian societies was to kill their enemies, rather than convert them, because killing your enemy only turns them into martyrs and gives justification to their cause.
Why, yes, old sport, they sure can. The French and Swedes have achieved much in this regard, all without being on the receiving ends of B-52’s.
But when the socialists attempting to set up socialism are receiving aid, training, weapons, etc, from the number one imperialist communist state on the globe, would you call that a choice freely made? Or would you call it something else?
Yep. Tis eery how Tenny boy’sTennyson’s narrative parallels that of the Soviets. At least until such time as the Soviets didn’t exist and then suddenly we weren’t “coddling dictators” or messing with socialist “choices of the people” and half of Germany was no longer reduced to manufacturing Trabands.
“simply put, no one is in a good position to model the growth or decline of terrorism as a function of our government’s response.”
I disagree, and apparently so does the CIA, which dedicates considerable resources to the topic and have, as a result, advised against pursuing certain actions precisely because they are perceived to create an increase in the threat of terrorism.
“I think I shall go home. See you lot later.”
Me too. Thanks.
I must say that there have been some good insights here. But the intensity of rancor is rather remarkable. Cheers!
Fuck those lying bastards.
RE: Tis eery how Tenny boy’sTennyson’s narrative …
I’ve really gotta stop trying to type and chew gum at the same time.
Can’t slip anything past this one.
Y’know, Tennyson, that sort of platitudinism used to be accompanied by bombastic references to the Almighty, whence the acronym BOMFOG (=Brotherhood of Man, Fatherhood of God).
We already know what “…conditions foster the rise of authoritarian, radical religious fundamentalism…” in the case of Islamists: specifically, that the perfectly righteous disgust with authoritarian regimes gets hijacked by clerics, who lack an organized Church structure and therefore have to seek authority in the secular realm. And since you yourself put sneer quotes around “democracy” and “free market”, what the Hell do you propose to offer as an alternative? Yeah, right, I know, the all-encompassing Dictatorship of the Proletariat — but that’s exactly what the imams have co-opted to their own use!
I gather that you would be among the first to decry as “dirty tricks” a mission to teach, e.g., the Egyptian Islamist Brotherhood about the ideals of the American Founding Fathers (certainly your posts up to now tend strongly to renounce any such silliness). What replaces that? Trotsky?
Oh, and I have to go, so let me address something from ‘way upthread — I will concede the “creating more terrorists” bit in the atmosphere in which it occurred. Specifically, the aims of the United States under Bush, as specifically and repeatedly declared, were not imperialist — George W. had neither intention nor desire to turn Iraq into a satrapy of the U.S. — but the loud, heartfelt, and unanimous declaration by the world Left and such fellow-travelers as yourself made the Iraqis assume that imperialism was the intent, and they responded to it. It took five years for them to find out otherwise, and at that it didn’t happen until the Islamists demonstrated themselves to be worse.
Regards,
Ric
How does this sound Mr. Orwell, we will try to build a democracy in Iraq, on their terms, with a Constitution of their making, as a way of winning converts, setting a model for the rest of the Middle East, with the belief that democracy’s don’t make war on one another.
Giving oppressed people liberty to address the root causes of their rage.
If only that had been discussed over the last eight years!
Having good intentions means never having to explain an alternative.
“In the breakup of the colonial world, U.S. policymakers very correctly perceived that in order to continue to maximize the disparity”
What “disparity”?
“U.S. businesses required ready and continued access to foreign markets.”
Why? Isn’t America a “big market”?
“Such markets could be secured by fostering a kind of political stability that favored the influx of U.S. investment, with a corresponding outflow of raw materials and the product of cheap labor.”
Ah, you favor democracy, then. Well good for you.
“Countries that resisted that kind of environment were at odds with the objectives of the U.S. gov’t and business community.”
Kleptocracy and communists do have a way of ruining an economy, don’t they?
“The real enemy was not communism, but rather, radical nationalism.”
The thugs who wanted to destroy the United States weren’t our enemy? Who knew?
“Vietnam was poised to go its own way, even if at some point potentially positioned to strike an alliance with the Soviets.”
North Vietnam was a Soviet puppet state.
South Vietnam was a free country and our ally.
“The U.S. gov’t perceived that a Vietnam under French colonial rule was better than a radical nationalist Vietnam that threatened to serve as an example to other post-colonial countries in the region who might draw the wrong conclusions.”
Translation: the domino theory was true.
“When the French proved incapable of holding off the Viet Mihn, the U.S. directly invaded, most dramatically in 1962.”
“By 1963, there were 16,000 American military personnel in South Vietnam”
-Wikipedia.
WOW! What an invasion!
Are you guys done with the idiot, yet?
If not, why?!
nah jihad recruiting porn always has bombs going off along with the infidel’s heads
That was exhiliarating. Especially when Tennyson climbed into a stall in post #303 and realized he needed to bust out some chaff — “socialism for the rich” and governors not imposing martial law — but I knew Ric and Noisy were coming in for the kill.
Better than Monday Night Raw. Way better than “The Italian Job.”
But then again, maybe we’ve been had. Remember when this post was about Cheney and Obama’s pretort to same?
Curse you, Rahm Emmanuel, you evil genius!
This has nothing to do with whether you or I or anyone else choose to describe ourselves as republican, democrat, liberal, conservative, right-wing, left-wing, or any other comparable term.
Half a wit, half a wit,
Half a wit onward,
All in the Foggy of Bottom
Rode the [Lord, help me]
“Forward the Twat Brigade!
…
If you want to blame root causes then go back to AD 700 and study why Islam turned from an enlightened, liberal religious philosophy to one of vengence and hatred.
Tennyson is like the man who knows the cost of everything, but the value of nothing.
Oh. OMT There’s a reason the CIA doesn’t make foreign policy.
Well Michael Scheuer seems to have even less use for Obama and Co. than he had for GW Bush. Doesn’t seem to like any recent (past 20 years) President. He does seem to be a man devoted to his Agency. As Rusty said, “There’s a reason the CIA doesn’t make foreign policy.”
“One thing I have observed for the past eight years is that the question is very rarely even raised in establishment circles.”
WTF? Unless that excludes DoD, and just about every #$%&ing think tank known, and DoS. And sites like Registan, Winds of Change, etal.
By God’s navel, I wore down more listening to all the endless ruminations on that than all my time in Interceptor body armor…
Oh, and I can’t believe someone dusted off the old “fighting the bad guys makes more of them” trope. FUnny how when I was advising the IA whilst they were sweeping the JAM and their Iranian proxies out of Basra, we didn;t exactly see an increase in JAM numbers. Well, dead and captured we did…
This is downright rollicking. Thanx, Tennyson.
Tennyson was a snooze I thought damn it was a long afternoon. Tennyson and the youtubes were blocked and NG was gone and boss person was infernally chatty. I feel sorry for him cause the more chatty he gets the less you can pretend he’s respectably intelligent. Him and Tennyson. Same same I think.
I mean… Vietnam? For reals? Ack.
I could follow it all, what with soccer and gym time. I’ll take Happy’s word for it, and not read, ok?
Hat Trick !!!
[Malkin]
“I was shocked by the speed with which the transnational, pacifist left organized against any sort of muscular response to the 9/11 attacks.”
The organizations and foundations were already in place and had been since the Vietnam War–some back to WW2.
I’m so confused, Mr Tennyson. I always thought that I was evil, but your ruminations tonight have me rethinking this. Perhaps I was rebelling against the imperialism of Camelot? Hmmmmm
Maybe I can begin rehabilitating my image now. Yep, Morganna was misunderstood and I was “interrogated” by Arthur. I was simply trying to overcome the violence inherent in the system! Oh, and Merlin was gay.
Oh, and don’t even get me started on Galahad. The chaste my ass!
baldilocks: “We made sure that torture was always an option.” Keep it clean.
that’s not at all what baldilocks said I don’t understand why sometimes this is such a struggle for you but if you have questions just ask. I’m here for you.
Oh, my apologies to baldilocks. I thought you were offering an excuse.
I hate to say this, but I’m gonna have to put Cynn on ‘Hammer watch. I don’t usually give warning, so at least I’m cutting her a little slack.
Oh, and since I’m dishing the dirt on Mr Tennyson, let me continue. Little known fact about Lancelot: He liked to breed dogs. He once bred a pit bull with a poodle. It couldn’t fight worth a damn, but it was a vicious gossip.
Comment by happyfeet on 5/21 @ 8:25 pm #
that’s not at all what baldilocks said I don’t understand why sometimes this is such a struggle for you but if you have questions just ask. I’m here for you.
Two words, Happyfeet. Box Wine.
Boilerplate.
Boileroom.
geoffb,
Quite so. I remember how hard the Afghans were trying to be “independent of America”. Well, when I wasn’t helping them build schools or set up a district government in Parwan or Kapisa…
And don’t get me started on the Iraqis…all that training of their Army – they just wanted it to fight us.
Carin: Are you the one who works out obssevily? Go do it. Ciao.
Too late, Cynn. Already finished my workout hours ago.
And, obsessively? I wouldn’t call 2 hrs, 6 times a week obsessive. But, whateve. Certainly it is no more time many people spend watching tv each day.
(anyone else think Cynn is a tad cranky tonight?)
I suppose you could drink to excess 6 times a week, Carin?
If you people in the media, blog or not, would stop allowing blatant criminals on the same stage with the President of the United States we would not be discussing the mental ravings of a sick coward acting like he is still in office. At no other time in history has a losing administration been afforded such a prominent platform. I wonder is this because he’s black President or are you guys so consumed with entertainment that you have forgotten the country is in a crisis?
Let’s go steal shit and give it to our greasy UAW thug pals you want? I’ll drive.
379 can’t be real. Parody?
Thass a lot of stupid there in 379.
She’s been that way since I mentioned O!’s new booze taxes a day or two ago, Carin.
At no other time in history has a losing administration been afforded such a prominent platform.
Ah, I see. You’re from the “Bearded Gore” universe where he didn’t win an Academy Award and a Nobel Prize.
Iteration number 4,151,623 of the ‘shut up you jerks.’ These fools just can’t handle da trooth.
oh hey. You know who is a blatant criminal I think is our dirty socialist tax cheat pussy boy Treasury secretary. Him’s the one what is printing all them stimulating Baracky dollars what will kick in any second now and either maybe save or maybe create green jobs for teh people! oh crap. Don’t look now but daddy just drove off with the t-bird I think.
And right on schedule our dipshit Il douche wants to transfer power from the SEC to the fed+treasury so his dipshit tax cheat can run roughshod over all the productive bits of what was once a nice functional economy so all the brown people in Venezuela don’t feel so bad that their lives suck suck suck.
If you people in the media, blog or not, would stop allowing blatant criminals on the same stage with the President of the United States we would not be discussing the mental ravings of a sick coward acting like he is still in office
Yeah, knock it off, mcgruder.
You, too, Mister Gore.
I wonder is this because he’s black President or are you guys so consumed with entertainment that you have forgotten the country is in a crisis?Oh, crap! You caught us. We’re all racists. It has nothing to do with policy, just racis…look bunnnies!
I wonder what Rattner is up to these days.
I wonder is this because he’s black President or are you guys so consumed with entertainment that you have forgotten the country is in a crisis?
You think of that one all on your own, pothead?
“consumed with entertainment”
WE DEMAND BREAD AND CIRCUSES!!11!
On the Left, the ideas get recycled continuously, only the names and personal history’s change. Those are made using a modified D&D character creation system. It’s the only thing of interest amid all the ancient talking points.
Oh! Did you see President Dreamy speak today? My goodness, can the man command the room,nay, the nation? Once again I’ve had a little accident. I just can’t help myself when I think about Barack McDreamy…damn I’ve done it again. I need to change my undergarments.
Dammit, Peggy! Control yourself or you’ll blow it for us all. Do you know how hard it is to get a decent tee time at the congressional? Bitch, please!
David, I will beat you like I own you beeyatch! I have my own social calendar to think about. Did I say that out loud?
Bring it whore.
David, I have underwear older than you. Did I mention that I worked for Reagan? Cause I did. I’m a conservative.
Peggy, you would look sooooooo good in black. Are you gay? Cause I would be so OK with that. We should have a big tent. I like big tents.
I saw a Volvo the other day with a bumper sticker said: “I am already opposed to the next war”
Closest I have ever been to road rage, wanting to try to slap some sense into that idiot right there.
BMoe,
I’m guessing you are in either New England or the PacNW? A sticker like that would be met with violence(Shock) here in TX.
Wow. If anyone hasn’t read the transcript, go read it. It’s absolutely devastating. And thorough. If Cheney could have given this speech in 2005 he’d probably be President right now. Dag.
OT – This is for Bob Reed, but all will enjoy.
What practices? Letting our women go around uncovered and unescorted? Producing goods and entertainments that seduce the Muslim youth away from the correct path? Not accepting Allah as our god?
I’m afraid that anything that would be acceptable to the Muslim world would be unacceptable to most Americans.
Hey! I’ve got a better idea! Why don’t we just be ourselves and if the Muslim world doesn’t like it they can just get stuffed? Oh we’ll let them piss and moan all they want but if they resort to force again then let’s make them wish they hadn’t.
Well, since Mr Tennyson hasn’t shown up to put me back in the box and since I am a character of his creation, I will continue to dish on Camelot. Gwen was a total whore. The only person that didn’t get it that was Arthur. Putz. Oh, and that grail thing? Total BS. We were all sitting ’round the table and all the sudden we hear this voice: Seek you the grail. Creeped us all out. Turns out it was Bors. He had been drinking tequila for three days and you know how that usually turns out. Guy was a kidder! Keerist, then here comes Lancelot with , “Hey, let’s go find some strange.” Next thing we all know we’re way away from home with no excuse, and we all know how that ends right? We have to have an excuse or we’re in the doghouse. So, we get back to the castle and there’s the ladies, pissed off to high heaven. Gwen starts out with the “where the fuck have you been” and Arthur is at a loss as usual. Galahad steps in with this “hey we wanted to come back but Mordred kept us out.” All the sudden I’m the evil one. Fine. You know the rest. Le Mort D’Doushebag in my opinion.
Mr Tennyson, can I go home now?
Alfred, Lord … doesn’t take into account the honor/shame dynamic in the Islamic cultures.
Because here you’ve got the Muslims sitting there with the One True Religion going on, worshiping the One True God, and they’re dirt poor and not inventing anything at all.
Meanwhile, the filthy pig dog Jooooos move in and the next thing you know, they’ve got the desert blossoming as the rose. Without the huge oil reserves that Allah gave the Muslims for the purpose of yanking the kaffir’s chain.
WTF? Well, the only explanation is that the Joooos and their lapdogs the Americans are allied with shaitan and playing dirty, dirty pool. It cannot be that their own culture is inherently repressive, resistant to change, and devoid of the ability to self-criticize. And it definitely cannot be that the children are often sexually molested and made to feel deeply, deeply ashamed. It cannot be the ancient brutality of the desert cultures.
No, it has to be the Jooooos and shaitan at work. They have by their success that is in our faces continually shamed us deeply, and the only way to purge that shame is to shed the blood of the shamer.
Alfred, Lord …, did you know that many Muslims search the Koran for evidence that all of the really important discoveries of the 20th century were really Muslim in origin? Did you know that Muslims in Europe and America are often radicalized after they go to college or med school and see what wondrous things the Infidel West has done and it shames them horribly?
Are you aware of the insane conspiracy theories and other lies that circulate throughout the population? I’m not just talking about the blood libels against the Jooooos (they steal our children to harvest their body parts!), I’m talking about nearly everything. Theirs is not a scientifically minded culture, nor do they have much going on in the way of a skeptical press or educational tradition.
The greatest evil that befalls human society results when people believe lies. The Holocaust happened only because people believed the Big Lies told about the Jews. The Islamic cultures are similarly infected with lies about us, lies that are ridiculous on their face but are believed earnestly and devoutly.
You can’t leave that out of the “root causes” column. They believe lies about us and are shamed. They see the truth about our accomplishments and are devastatingly shamed. All of this is internal to their cultures, and when weighed against our pecadillos and stupidities in our foreign policy, it’s obvious that our sins are not that great.
But they are what’s blamed, because they cannot endure the shame of admitting that they’re so screwed up.
Athens, Ga.
Big D,
Thanks for the link, it takes me back to good times…
Best Wishes to you and yours
“I am already opposed to the next warâ€
Closest I have ever been to road rage
B Moe — I think they meant the one where our side takes back our country. See how that works in our favor?
I say, not for the last time, that Carin is a badass.
That is all.
Oh, and if her comments here are any indication, cynn spends at least that much time drinking heavily. Or obsessively, even.
In “The Age of Sacred Terror” (written by 2 members of Clinton’s NSC) the authors speak of the overwhelming popularity of apocalyptic novels, sort of the “Left Behind” of the Muslim world. All of them, to various degrees and with prose so overheated one could use it to grill a whole pig, speak to the coming of the Prophet to lead his hordes against the forces of the Dajjal, which is always identified as Christians and Zionists led my the US, who is the embodiment of the Dajjal.
Throw in the thousands of madrassas around the world (especially in Pakistan, India and Saudi Arabia) which preach the Wahhabi doctrine of death to infidels and you have a significant portion of the Islamic population programmed from childhood to hate the West and Jews and everything that characterizes their culture and religions.
What the CIA analysis does not touch upon is Bin Laden’s and others words in their fatwas. Alfred has fallen for the propaganda that jihadists use to recruit: The idea of infidel incursion and the cleansing of the “holy lands.” However, the motivations run far deeper than that. From Taymiyya to Wahabbi to Qutb up to the modern day cultural corruption of the faith is a central tenet in jihidist motivation. Keep in mind that any Muslim state that embraces any of the cultures, economies and freedoms of Western civilization are considered Apostate (hell, bin laden and others have argued for years that Saudi Freakin’ Arabia is Apostate, not only because of the presence of infidels on holy holy grounds but because of the perceived corruption of its rulers by its accumulation of riches from infidels) and that corruption must be wiped out.
By any means necessary.
Alfred, you have fallen into the trap that holds the likes of Helen Thomas, Code Pink and any number of liberal congress critters and activists. It’s much deeper than a shallow victimization call to arms. They really do hate our freedoms because those very freedoms produce a culture that they believe erodes the faith of the umma.
As to the whole idea of our aggressive response to terrorism, you are operating (IMHO) under two deadly fallacies:
1) The “Cost/Benefit Analysis:” Your concept of spending too much money for too little result fails to take into account the devastating effects on our economy of the 9/11 attacks. Take a minute and do a “cost/benefit analysis” of two dirty bombs exploded in the ports of Los Angeles and Houston. Those economic effects would make the 9/11 downturn seem like a mediocre crop season. It is the very nature of modern jihadist asymmetrical warfare that relatively small resources produce ginormous results. Changing the “battlefield” keeps the costs known and, by the way, drains the resources of the enemy. Thus they are now pretty much stuck in the stone age part of the world and have expended both lucre and man power in what proved to be a losing proposition in Iraq. As a former commentator once wrote, terrorists are not Doritos being baked in a factory.It ain’t over and there are still massive concerns with Pakistan and other potential world wide cells but we are in a better place than we were post 9/11 with regards to domestic security.
2) To quote a “West Wing” character: It’s about religion. You can spout all of the anti-imperialism and economic disadvantaged bromides that you want but a close reading and analysis of the jihadist groups pins their centrality of purpose on one thing
Global. Religious. Conversion.
These people (jihadists) really do want to “conquer the world.” They have proven that they will do anything within their means to accomplish it, step by step. They hate the US for it’s culture and freedoms but they also hate and fear us for our strength. During the video that was captured in Afghanistan Osama mentioned what the best recruitment method was for converts. It was the success of the 9/11 attacks! Nothing breeds willing volunteers like success. This idea that jihadists as a whole are not subject to human frailties in their own way is bogus and not supported by history. The Quran itself talks about negotiating 10 year peace agreements with opposing powers when they prove to be too powerful. Once Iraq turned, recruitment suffered world wide. Even jihadists get tired of backing a loser.
That’s why a forceful, global response to this new kind of warfare is so important. It’s not that we have to “kill them all,” a phrase that is both ignorant and beside the point. It’s that we need to make asymmetrical warfare of the jihidust kind so devastatingly costly in manpower and money as too discourage the vast majority of the unwashed jihadi masses from taking it up, perhaps seeing cab driving or pizza shops as a more reasonable alternative.
Again, it’s about the religion, Mr. President. to ignore that foundational truth is to back away and “turtle” in the hope that they will ignore us. That has never been proven in all of history to assuage rdical jihadists. It won’t mellow them today, either.
“Tennyson” was more interested in stroking his lefty bonafides than actual discussion, folks.
I have to admit the euphemism of “radical nationalists” for “international communism” is a new one.
The more I read Obama’s speech (I have yet to see it on video), the more troubling I find it. For instance, Obama is so disconnected from a proper respect for our founding documents and the philosophical position that they take, that he sees fit, without a second thought so far as I can see, to use them as props, like a fake sword in a staged play, to wave about in the air. He doesn’t shine any light on them at all. They constitute for him a convenient object at which to gesture, but never an idea to broaden or discuss. The are “our values” in his world. Notice though, that he never specifies what those “values” are, never cites them chapter and verse, never looks to see what their origins can tell us.
Here is an instance of Obama’s use of “our values”.
Our best national security asset? How did that national security asset perform as an instrument of warning in the run-up to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, pray tell? Wouldn’t we imagine that information as to the exact location of the Imperial fleet might have proved for a better outcome than not? What preposterous drivel he makes of these words, as he drives government to ever greater seizure of private property in contravention of our principles.
All while accusing his predecessor of “…turn[ing] our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake.”
How, exactly, did they “turn our back”? He does not say. Is that because he can not say? And he cannot say because the Bush administration did not turn its back on our principles as it acted in defense of the nation. He lies to our faces, does our President, though not just about his political rivals, the sort of lie we have come to expect from such politicians, but about the very meaning of our polity’s founding.
Slart, while I may be addicted (somewhat ) to working out, Cynn apparently thinks that is a bad thing. I thought the Messiah wanted us to get in better shape? All that hoopla about Michelle’s arms , yada yada. I guess it’s just bullshit. Working out is a sign that you are attempting to be like your betters. Kinda like how royalty didn’t allow commoners to wear purple.
I tried to read through the speech, but could only make it through a second page. I liked this (and my lack, I mean it made me want to hit something)
I assume by “others” he means his friends in the media.
Oh, and honestly, this guy is a piece of work. He has, basically, total power and he’s whining that those (out of power) are voicing dissent? Man up, asshole.
Oh, he’s just lying. How many time has this tool used the phrase “the last eight years” in the last 100 days?
Honestly, I don’t listen to his speeches because I don’t think he means a word he says. They are aimed at persuading those who won’t hold him accountable, and aren’t interested in the truth of the matter.
If there were to be found a correct sense in which our principles of Government could be considered our best national security asset, Carin, it might be precisely in the peoples understanding of them and application of them to expose the fraud perpetrated on those self-same people by men like Barack Obama, in order to rid government of such men, thus to preserve those principles and with them, the nation. Sometimes we have to suffer ourselves to listen in order to hear.
Sometimes we have to suffer ourselves to listen in order to hear.
It’s just … I’d rather watch what he DOES. His speeches seem to be just a nice collection of words, arranged in a verbally pleasing way, that need not have any relationship to reality.
The Hammer has been watching:
But I have no interest in spending all of our time re-litigating the policies of the last eight years. I’ll leave that to others.
Bull-fucking-shit. You have spent literally years running against all of the criminal evil acts of the evil BusHitlerCo administration. Now, you want to declare yourself above the fray, and send out your media fellators and the likes of fucking Axelrod to do exactly that which you declare yourself to be above.
If he wants to moveon, and quit re-litigating the policies of the past, he should quit blaming President Bush for the sun coming up, and everything else.
Amen, Pablo. If he really wants to move on, he should put an Invisible Fence collar on, and it should shock him every time he says “the last 8 years”, “Bush”, etc …
I luvs me The Hammer.
His speeches seem to be just a nice collection of words, arranged in a verbally pleasing way
I find nothing pleasing about empty bromides, self-contradictory statements, and bald-faced lies. He is not a great orator. There is nothing great about multiplying words to satisfy one’s vanity.
Well, sure dicentra. If you’re gonna pay attention to what he’s saying. But, from an acoustic POV …
#
“Comment by cynn on 5/21 @ 8:16 pm #
baldilocks: “We made sure that torture was always an option.†Keep it clean.”
Are you smoking something? I was answering something early in the thread about how the anti-war movement got going so quickly after 9/11. Fleck off.
“Comment by cynn on 5/21 @ 8:27 pm #
Oh, my apologies to baldilocks. I thought you were offering an excuse.”
Apology not accepted. Pay attention.
Good on ‘ya, baldilocks. The fact that cynn was hitting the MadDog 20/20, hard, does not excuse her idiocy.
steve tennyson and keith please eat shit and die
Where have I been? Sorry I missed this thread earlier.
I’m struck by how polished Tenny’s arguments are. These aren’t the ravings of your average moonbat, they’re an expression of a long-studied and carefully thought out spiel, boilerplate, as geoffb suggests @ 373. It reminded me a good deal of the talking points of the Communist Party, USA — the evil imperialist Americans v. the poor, exploited, freedom-loving peoples of the third world — but I think Ric Locke @ 347 hit the nail on the head. Our Tenny may be an insurance salesman during the week, but I’d bet he’s the Imam of Iowa City come Sunday.
Imagine how this line of claptrap plays in the general population of your average medium security prison, where the inmates aren’t into critical thinking and are already inclined to believe that they’re being opressed by the system. Scary stuff.
I think the post above made some interesting points, on a related side note I found a used version ofFinancial Reporting, Financial Statement Analysis, and Valuation: A Strategic Perspective which is directly related to this topic for lessthan the bookstores at http://www.belabooks.com/books/9780324302950.htm