Scrolling through the last 15 or so posts before starting to cook tonight's sup of sun-dried tomatoes, mushrooms, garlic, and olive oil accompanied by Spanish red wine, I was struck with a warmth (don't know how else to put it): how lucky and happy and connected I feel (despite the crises confronting us from our own in DC) having bebop-o and miss kitty and bahhummingbird in my life since stumbling into Glenn's salon saloon.

The funny thing is anonymous' cranky post appeared just then, and a smile.

Bon appetit,
Gordon Ginshummingberg-o

Laws cannot be "correct in fact" but not "in theory." That's not what laws are.

C'mon JO, this is getting back into silly semantics. Are we talking about legally "correct", or morally "correct"?

Shooting somebody with a gun is illegal; it doesn't become legal if I do it and get away with it. You're using "Dirty Harry" logic.

It may not be legal, but it may be correct, that is to say moral. This all points up the difficulty of insisting on "what should be" while the rest of the world operates on "what is". A local example is the law against driving while on a handheld cellphone. It's legal, moral, and ignored completely. The law may as well not exist. In fact let me point you to a book review written about a person making those distinctions in the Bush administration. I haven't read it yet, but it should shed light on the difficulty process of legalities and the WOT.
http://www.tnr.com/currentissue/story.html?id=fe4ec25a-8fb0-4fc2-8735-6fd05b4b4b05

Of course that's correct, but making things much worse (by, say, murdering a million Iraqi civilians) doesn't help things

Nor does throwing BS statistics into the conversation to evoke an emotional response thats inappropriate. Since you didn't provide a source, I have to presume you are referring to latest Lancet study? If you check it doesn't say WE murdered a huge amount of people. I'll leave it at that until you decide to provide a source for that allegation.

I'm not talking about "liking us" in some touchy-feely warm-fuzzy sense. I'm talking about the specific economic and security-related results of them trusting and respecting us as trade partners, business partners, and military allies.

Jeebus. People don't do business or hook up militarily because they "like" someone. Do we like Communist China? Who cares? They have what we need in terms of trade and influence with North Korea.
You seem to have a strange view of how the world works. Consider that "respect" is much more important than "like" in any negotiation. That would be "respect" in the sense of being aware of both the positive and negative aspects of working with someone and the risks involved.

When the current United States intervenes in a world crisis and states a "human rights abuse" as its rationale, it's a little like an visibly drunk highway patrolman attempting to perform a DUI.

As opposed to invading a country and overthrowing a government because someone we want is there? Human rights is not the primary reason we went to Iraq for the second or third time (depending on interpretations of Clinton's bombing). But it's still a lovely sentiment to consider while we are there. Aside from that, hanging one's hat on Human Rights for motivation of anything is very shaky proposition. After that one has to ask why the UN is less concerned human rights, than preserving the rule of people that contravene said rights in ways the US can't even imagine. Oh well, that's the real world for you. Action or even inaction always has unintended consequences even when it's "correct".

Shooter 242 writes:

"I don't get this grave concern for the world to like us. What difference would it make exactly? What is this need for approval from people you don't know? I'm not getting it. On a global basis, life is a free for all with no governing body to play referee, except what might be agreed to such as the UN."

Besides quoting you a little John Donne on this, which I won't, I think you have either an extremely simplistic view of how the economy of the world works, or you're of the view that "I've got mine, Jack. Screw you . . . "

Not real helpful as we watch the last of the world's oil supply literally going up in smoke as the other nations of the world scrabble to get their share. It's better perhaps to play nice because the bully-boy method ain't gonna work well when all the other kids get wise and start teaming up together.

SNIP

"Let me also remind you that 9/11 was conceived, planned and staged during the tenure of the most popular President in the World. Obviously, good will didn't help us out at all."

Some pundits believe that the whole process started when Ronnie got cold feet and ran from Lebanon . . .

And yes, I'll be a hypocrite here and ask, why can't you righties write anything (well not 100% -- don't want to get into a hair-splitting contest here) without (bitterly) taking crude and silly swipes at das Klintons??? Let's remember, the main hair up these folk's (the non-Iranians and non-Iraqis who didn't drive airplanes into buildings) collective asses was the stationing of armed infidel foreigners on Holy Ground -- and as I recall Poppy was far from being "the most popular President in the World" when that happened on his watch.

I'm not going to waste my time digging up all of the statistics on this, anyone can find them, and anyone who has just a small amount of knowledge about the Gulf War of 1991 as opposed to this current debacle will know that what I am writing is true.

This goes to the relentlessly dishonest and thick as a brick shooter's take on what good is being respected and trusted.

In the Gulf War of '91 there were something like 34 coalition countries besides the United states. Real coalition countries that provided real amounts of troops, and paid for about 85% of the cost of the war. Meaning that the US paid for about 15% of the war.

In this current FUBAR we are paying for damned near the whole f'ing thing to the tune of a trillion dollars, and also providing nearly all of the man power.

Those are the facts, and that's one gigantic reason why it sucks to be hated, and mistrusted. Simple as that.