Letters to the Editor
-
I said you could call me an asshole
I thought FB deserved a good bashing; you disagreed.
All in a day's work. Nothing wrong with dishing it out in my book, as long as we can also take it. Which you can.
-- William Timberman
That's what friends are for.
As to FB, well... the bad news is Iraq will be a 2012 campaign issue. I tried to warn y'all. It's nobody's fault but Bush's, although Atrios wants to rub liberal hawks' beak in it. I suppose there is some point to that but this is what happens when foreign policy becomes a domestic political football.
Atrios does Stoppard.
Thanks Liberal Hawks
There must have been a moment, at the beginning, where we could have said -- no. But, somehow we missed it.
Well, we'll know better next time.
-Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/26/ricks-iraqs-best-case-scenario-is-basically-a-quagmire/
-
LWM
All of a sudden, history disappears and the GOP are the "anti-war party".
To the extent that the Goopers were against (almost) anything Clinton was for they were indeed the anti-war party when it came to a conflict Clinton wanted.
I understood quite well what omooex was trying to say, that you claim not to have speaks volumes of you.
-
This is likely what will happen
Something along these lines. A long drawdown until a residual force this size or a bit larger remains and remains there for some time. One of the reasons I read Pat Lang:
- A “residual” military presence in Iraq is another major issue.
In a withdrawal conducted under administrative conditions, it will be possible to position a “force” of trainers, suppliers, SOF jihadi hunters and force protection people wherever they are needed. The force protection element of this force might be a reinforced heavy brigade. Altogether the benign atmosphere presence might be 20,000.
In a “contested” withdrawal, the existence of these forces will be problematic from the beginning. A “residual” force with less than a reinforced heavy division and appropriate air support as the basis of its security would be a very risky venture over the long run. This force would number something in the area of 35,000 to 40,000 people. The logistical problems involved in supplying this force or any sized force overland would be enormous.
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/files/Withdrawal.doc
-
Duh
To the extent that the Goopers were against (almost) anything Clinton was for they were indeed the anti-war party when it came to a conflict Clinton wanted.
Duh.
I understood quite well what omooex was trying to say, that you claim not to have speaks volumes of you.
-- Aycharaych
I never claimed I didn't understand what moo-moo was saying. I implied moo-moo was like a mushroom.
Don't eat those mushrooms. They grow on bullshit and they might be poisonous. Come to think of it, you're kind of like a mushroom, too. Kept in the dark and fed on bullshit.
-
Indeed, LWM
Disingenuous to an extreme. I had a nuanced and well thought out argument. When Republicans were in power they took many of the same positions that Democrats now take--not because it was good or bad, but because it was expedient. Its not that strange to consider that Democrats might be doing it too--not because its right or wrong, but because it is politically expedient. There was much more to my argument, in any case.
This part goes out to everyone here. You underestimate and degrade yourself when you create a strawman to counter arguments. Argue with on the issues as they've been presented, the entirety of it and in context; amplify our discourse rather than withering it away. That seems a difficult concept for many people herein.
-
Aych
I hear no complaints of the door busting "no knock" warrants that are almost entirely dedicated to the drug war and so often go tragically awry.
My sister's home was subject to a no-knock, door busting warrant a year ago, almost to the day, that had nothing to do with drugs, and I have talked about it here.
Her fiance was killed. For no f'ing good reason.
Is that tragic enough for you?
Were you paying attention when I mentioned it?
Or does the word "drug" have to have something to do with it before you lend credence to other's woes?
-
@Pedinska
If I had to guess, in his case, he's a pothead and Ron Paul seems like the best candidate for his purposes. It's all about his drug use. I think the best candidate for the country may be someone who is concerned with more than my right to get high.
Moo-moo... I had a nuanced and well thought out argument.
And you are voting for Obama because he's black and cast one vote you agree with.
Enter Obama. I am certainly voting for him, and I have to admit it is mostly because he is black and wasn't involved in the Iraq war cowardice.
Next.
And maybe the next species will do better than this.
-
@ Aycharaych It's True
The Feds have been trying to take down the Mafia, and more recently the Angels, the Crips et al since forever.
They have failed utterly. One of the reasons has always been the inability of those on the outside to get "inside". What successes they have had have usually been through turning someone on the inside who knows that "we should talk to Tommy about that" really means Tommy is about to go for a drive with the tinted windows up. That is not happening with Al Qaida, mostly because there is no Al Qaida, but to the extent that the enemies exist, they are opaque to the inbred white bread Yale types who still pollute and populate the intelligence agencies.
I also understand that machine translation, even the advanced systems used by the NSA still work very badly, add to that the shortage of Arabic translators and it is unlikely that even a perfect record of every conversation will yield anything of real intelligence value. "They" know this of course, which brings me back to my original point. The surveillance is not there to catch "terrorists", it is there to spy on the real enemies, ie anyone who might be a threat to the oligarchy, and the permanent government (to the extent that they are separate entities). And it is there to instill fear in us all. I have friends who will tell me, "shh, don't say that on the phone". And I am not talking about my biker friends.
And as an aside I do agree with you about the drug war and the prison industrial complex. The people who are really running the show from behind the curtain employ brilliant social psychologists. One of the things they do is covert desensitization, ie they squeeze a little every day so we don't notice the loss of our liberties. A good way to do that is the drug war. We accept, almost unconsciously now, that our neighbour can be locked away for many years for growing a forbidden plant. Just as we accept the need for our employers to sample our urine. So when they come for our neighbour or our friend on the mere suspicion that he might be a terrorist, and lock him up without charge on the basis of secret evidence - we don't find that shocking at all.
If you want to read a great book on the subject check out "Prison as Industry" by Nils Christie.
2.2 million in prison in America, more than China, more than Russia, who's got the Gulag now?