Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 2149 Editor's Choice: 7
-
Shooter jumps at the opportunity to misunderstand.
[Read the article: The Padilla verdict]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Fraud guy states clearly that 80% of people are decent and follow the rules - 10% are lying cheating bastards and 10% are doormats.
Shooter immediately jumps to the conclusion that that means that 90% of people are lying cheating bastards. What does this tell us about shooter?
hmmmmm......
-
"National Interest"
[Read the article: The rigid pro-war ideology of the foreign policy community]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think the most light can be shed on the debate by examining the assumptions implicit in the phrase "national interest".
Nations are not monoliths. They are collections of individuals who share a common area of birth and traditionally act for their collective defense. To treat them as single entities is convenient and helps simplify a complex world but it is morally unjustifiable. Put simply, most of the people who have died in the Iraq war had done nothing in particular to warrant being killed. They were not guilty of anything except living under the Hussein regime and doing what was necessary to survive under those circumstances. But to point this out is to spoil the party. One can analyze the actions of nations and even speak generally about how the various factions within them interact but to do so, it is necessary to deny the humanity of the individual actors that comprise the nation in question. This is the actual sin of foreign policy analysis. The resulting carnage is the just the inevitable by-product.
The degree to which you are able to indeed dehumanize your object of study, is the degree to which you can earn the mantle of "seriousness".
-
I'm suddenly reminded....
[Read the article: The rigid pro-war ideology of the foreign policy community]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]By deliberately blurring the line between threats to our national interest and threats to our national security.
Of the phrase "What's good for General Motors is good for America." Of course the quote itself is usally used out of context but it does remind us that when we speak of our "national interest" we have to be particularly careful because in many cases the actual beneficiaries of our foreign policy actions are corpaorate entities which as time goes on, are less and less tied to the US in the first place.
The link below randomly came up when I googled the above phrase but it illustrates my point well.
http://www.evolutionary-economics.org/KSH-Postings-Econ/506.html
The article is about GE's involvment in China.
GE is also famous for providing armaments to the US AND owning a major US TV network.
-
So anonymous is suggesting
[Read the article: The rigid pro-war ideology of the foreign policy community]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That rather than actually engage in dialog and debate with the people who are actually driving the US policy, that our time would be better spent engaging in street theater?
Strong words from someone not even willing to identify themselves online.
-
Dirty Hippies
[Read the article: The rigid pro-war ideology of the foreign policy community]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sorry. The reason the phrase "dirty hippies" resonates so thoroughly within the blogosphere is because we AREN'T dirty hippies. Simply "taking to the streets" without controlling your message at least as effectively as GE and ABC/Disney do is to invite ridicule and to lose the middle. It is the media that is driving the thought in this country and the media that needs to be battled. I don't know about you but I happen to think that working online has proved significantly MORE effective than anything ANSWER has been able to provide.
Just my 0.02 USD.
-
Hey hey LBJ
[Read the article: The rigid pro-war ideology of the foreign policy community]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How many kids did you kill today.
I seem to remember something about August 1968 as well.
Chicago?
Perhaps anonymous is right. If people start getting their heads busted open for the cause, perhaps the mushy middle will realize that its serious after all.
-
Its about results..
[Read the article: The rigid pro-war ideology of the foreign policy community]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To put it bluntly, your generalizations lack factual support. Far from being imperialist, the foreign policy community in general hold restrained opinions.
Which of course is why the draw-down of forces from Iraq is continuing apace having been reccomended by experts in the foreign policy community who's respected opinion has guided the country valiantly and brilliantly through the pitfalls and traps that the aspiration to empire has laid in our path.
Which planet did you say you were from?
-
While I'm glad to see honest debate
[Read the article: Reply to Dan Drezner]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]and a seemingly constructive dialog taking place, I still think that we are suffering from over-abstraction which prevents clear thinking about the issues under discussion.
Even the phrase "use of force" conceals much more than it reveals. Perhaps if we instead used the phrase "use of incendinary munitions resulting in human flesh roasting and blistering until it peels off the bone of its victims" we would be having a slightly more honest discussion.
-
Quibble with the quibble
[Read the article: Reply to Dan Drezner]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]For the purposes of "imperialism", therefore, the Iraq and Yugoslavia bombings aren't really on our account.
The participation of client states in a military action doesn't negate the label of Imperialism. It actually rather enhances it since the actions of the allied states are also controlled by the Imperial power.
-
High Broderism.....
[Read the article: Why is the Democratic Congress so unpopular?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A big part of the problem is simply the insular nature of Washington establishment. What your article actually demonstrates is in one sense everybody's right. So-called centrists (who are more interested in avoiding conflict than actually defending any particular view) and Republicans might disapprove if Congress shows any gumption and Democrats and actual Independents might disappove for the lack of gumption but the only message getting to the representatives themselves is coming from the gatekeeper insiders. As a result - everybody loses.
-
In my real life
[Read the article: Why is the Democratic Congress so unpopular?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I actually dislike confrontation and don't necessarlity put forward my political views when dealing with strangers or with people whose views I'm not familiar with.
But at this point in time, I can say to just about anyone I meet, "GW Bush is absolutely the worst president in the history of the United States" and have no fear whatsoever of a hostile reaction. That being the case, you would think that the Dems in Congress could at least say something like "Alberto Gonzales is a serial liar who has no business having a job let alone holding public office."
You'd think.
-
@Elephantman
[Read the article: Why is the Democratic Congress so unpopular?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You have a lot of damn gall talking about larger government!
Your boy Bush is the most fiscally irresponsible big spending government bloating SOB we've seen in years.
-
Links for the lying pachyderm
[Read the article: Why is the Democratic Congress so unpopular?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/charts_S/s1.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/charts_S/s4.cfm