Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Yeah, I don't speak Spanish either.

Was this in response to a post from about a month ago?

Ty, there has to be some standard of timely response here. You should change your tag line to "even more to regret everyday".

RT, can we get a ruling!?!??!?!?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
We killed more Iraqis in our invasion and the subsequent insurgency our half assed reconstruction caused than Hussein would've killed in 2 more decades in power.

Do you know how many deaths are attributable to Hussein since he has been in power and do you know how many people in Iraq have died since the war started?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
had Hussein stayed in power, he'd have probably lived another ten or so years,

Hadn't thought of that. Wonder who was in line to take over?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Hadn't thought of that. Wonder who was in line to take over?

Castro? He'd still be alive then.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I criticize people who are either incompetent or reckless with the truth. I am a litigator. If I told my client that I had a slam dunk case for a TRO to shut down a copyright infringer, and instead my case dragged on for 2 years, and cost them lots of money without getting the TRO, I would (and should) be canned.

Is America better off without Hussein? In a moral sense, maybe. From a strategic sense, I think that he was pretty well contained, and that he was no longer a threat to his neighbors. I think that the invasion has hurt the US because it diverted our attention from Afghanistan and other problems in the war on terror.

Are the Iraqi people better off? I would guess that they would be in a better position to answer that question. Most of the atrocities that you will no doubt cite occurred before, or in the immediate aftermath of, the first Gulf War. I'm not ready to say that it's a bad thing that he's gone, but I'm safe here in Podunkville. I'm not one of the people blown up by a car bomb in Baghdad, or caught in the crossfire in Fallujah.

Nonetheless, we overthrew him, and now we are stuck in Iraq, and we can't just leave the place broken. But why should we allow the people who didn't listen to the advice of those (like Powell and Franks) who may have favored overthrowing SH, but warned of the very problems that we are now seeing, get a free pass on criticism? There are *still* problems with getting plates for Kevlar vests to our troops on the ground. There are *still* problems with getting Humvees uparmored. Why doesn't this bother you?

Returning to my TRO analogy, 2 years after the suit is filed, the executives at the company -- those who agreed that filing was a good idea as well as those who disagreed -- all probably think that the legal approach I pursued was ineffective. Was I puffing my chances of getting the TRO, or was I just incompetent? Does it matter? My approach has failed, and since I don't seem to recognize this, and instead keep insisting that I'm going to win any day now without really aknowledging that I screwed up (although now I say that I'm going for long-term results, and a judgment for an injunction instead of a mere TRO), why should my clients be satisfied with an answer like "well, either you think that the infringer should have been left alone, or you should agree with me?"

We are war with people that want us wiped out. We ignored the threat for years. We can no longer. Your analogy is an insult really to the 3000 people who died on 9/11.

Fighting terrorism is not some optional TRO. It is a bet the farm fight for the company.

Did you read that Saudi religious authorities are now telling young men not to play soccer and concentrate on Jihad?http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...8-8-2005_pg7_8

I just don't think your party's policy of hoping it gets better is the way.

Have there been mis-steps, mistakes, things that should be corrected to this day? Sure. You know we lost some battles in WWII, right?

When you console your client on trying to get the TRO I know you would also tell them it isn't likely you'll get relief that fast, you tell them if they lack the stomach for a long lawsuit they really shouldn't consider the TRO. If you do that then you can remind them of the advice later when they want out.

Bush has said, at every step, the fight will be long and difficult. He never spoke of a TRO win. Your side will snipe at every action taken- they will never be good enough, but those actions are still better than the long inaction that put us where we are.

[Ty@50]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Yeah, I don't speak Spanish either.

I still don't. And every night I thank George W. Bush that my kids and I don't have to speak Arabic.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski

Bush has said, at every step, the fight will be long and difficult. He never spoke of a TRO win.

If only this were true.

I think if you were to go back and look, you'd find that your strawman of "do nothing and hope" doesn't actually have a lot of support on the liberal side here. There was huge (board) bipartisan support for Bush going into Afganistan, for example.

But many of who are less predisposed to root for Bush on reflex wonder if he didn't pursue the most expensive (economicly, and worse, in cost of lives) and least likely path toward eliminating terrorism.

200,000 soldiers (not enough). How much money now? $100B? Imagine all that trained on the man who actually has attacked the US.

Do not get us wrong: the Dems, at least on this board, don't think Bush is wrong because he's killing Arabs (although killing anybody - not our favorite thing). He's wrong because he's wasting time and resources not making us any safer, and, indeed, increasing our threat by creating a new training ground for terrorists, complete with huge stocks of live ammo.

This ultimately is what causes so much rage in liberals against conservatives right now. We have a legitimate difference of opinion as to what the best course of action is to decrease the threat of terrorism and protect America. The response is not a discussion, but a shrill cry of treason. It's getting a little old.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by baltassoc
If only this were true.

I think if you were to go back and look, you'd find that your strawman of "do nothing and hope" doesn't actually have a lot of support on the liberal side here. There was huge (board) bipartisan support for Bush going into Afganistan, for example.

But many of who are less predisposed to root for Bush on reflex wonder if he didn't pursue the most expensive (economicly, and worse, in cost of lives) and least likely path toward eliminating terrorism.

200,000 soldiers (not enough). How much money now? $100B? Imagine all that trained on the man who actually has attacked the US.

Do not get us wrong: the Dems, at least on this board, don't think Bush is wrong because he's killing Arabs (although killing anybody - not our favorite thing). He's wrong because he's wasting time and resources not making us any safer, and, indeed, increasing our threat by creating a new training ground for terrorists, complete with huge stocks of live ammo.

This ultimately is what causes so much rage in liberals against conservatives right now. We have a legitimate difference of opinion as to what the best course of action is to decrease the threat of terrorism and protect America. The response is not a discussion, but a shrill cry of treason. It's getting a little old.

1 man did not attack us. Killing 1 man in 1995 might have gone a long way to ending the problem, but we passed. Instead he was able to train 20000 terrorists in the Afghan camps. Since we cannot go into Pakistan we don't need 200k troops there. 20000 terrorists is enough to do us harm. Combine that with the possibility that Iraq would have/ could have given them chemical weapons and you have 1000s more dead. That justified attacking Iraq.

I have never called anyone treasonist for voicing an opinion. However, I believe some of the arguments used by the Dems politicians to generate dis-satisfaction with Bush are harmful to the Country, and when a politician harms my country to try and generate some desparate sliver of political gain, that gets close to treason.

Example: Cindy isn't against the war in Iraq- she is against wars that are fought for the Jews- she is against Iraq AND AFGHANISTAN .

So here is a party which pushes a media darling because it might cause some harm to support for Iraq (and to what end given that you all believe now that we're there we have to leave something workable), but none of you are acknowledging that she isn't just against Iraq, or that her motivation isn't hate induced. And guess what? the anti-afghan war and anti-Jew chunk of your party is sizable.

Problem- if you ever got back in power the substantial portion of your party which WAS and IS against any action anywhere will block you from taking out the future OBLs. I say, why change horses in midstream?

Oh, and Bush did warn everyone that there were no easy steps, and did not imply that some TRO-like thing could be done (of course if Clinton had killed OBL in 1995 that might have been effdectively a TRO).

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I criticize people who are either incompetent or reckless with the truth. I am a litigator. If I told my client that I had a slam dunk case for a TRO to shut down a copyright infringer, and instead my case dragged on for 2 years, and cost them lots of money without getting the TRO, I would (and should) be canned.

Is America better off without Hussein? In a moral sense, maybe. From a strategic sense, I think that he was pretty well contained, and that he was no longer a threat to his neighbors. I think that the invasion has hurt the US because it diverted our attention from Afghanistan and other problems in the war on terror.

Are the Iraqi people better off? I would guess that they would be in a better position to answer that question. Most of the atrocities that you will no doubt cite occurred before, or in the immediate aftermath of, the first Gulf War. I'm not ready to say that it's a bad thing that he's gone, but I'm safe here in Podunkville. I'm not one of the people blown up by a car bomb in Baghdad, or caught in the crossfire in Fallujah.

Nonetheless, we overthrew him, and now we are stuck in Iraq, and we can't just leave the place broken. But why should we allow the people who didn't listen to the advice of those (like Powell and Franks) who may have favored overthrowing SH, but warned of the very problems that we are now seeing, get a free pass on criticism? There are *still* problems with getting plates for Kevlar vests to our troops on the ground. There are *still* problems with getting Humvees uparmored. Why doesn't this bother you?

Returning to my TRO analogy, 2 years after the suit is filed, the executives at the company -- those who agreed that filing was a good idea as well as those who disagreed -- all probably think that the legal approach I pursued was ineffective. Was I puffing my chances of getting the TRO, or was I just incompetent? Does it matter? My approach has failed, and since I don't seem to recognize this, and instead keep insisting that I'm going to win any day now without really aknowledging that I screwed up (although now I say that I'm going for long-term results, and a judgment for an injunction instead of a mere TRO), why should my clients be satisfied with an answer like "well, either you think that the infringer should have been left alone, or you should agree with me?"

Translation for Spanky's simplistic world: Not Bob hates America.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
We are war with people that want us wiped out. We ignored the threat for years. We can no longer. Your analogy is an insult really to the 3000 people who died on 9/11.

This argument is crap and it has always been crap.

The first sentence is true. The rest of the sentences are false. The second sentence is either a lie or willfully ignorant.

Bob's analogy is not bad -- because it focuses on incompetence -- which is the major complaint at this point.

We are at war with people who want us wiped out, and by invading Iraq we attacked mostly an entirely different bunch of people. No significant link between Iraq and anti-U.S. terrorism, al-Qaeda, etc. existed before the invasion [eta -- except for the attempted assassination of Bush I] and no serious argument can now be made to the contrary.

Your use of 9/11 as justification for the Iraq war suggests that you have drunk the Kool-Aid. That tragedy did not make it a good idea for us to go around and start killing everyone who we think needed killing. Even if we're right, its a bad policy sometimes. The consequences could be worse than having left it alone.

As to Bush -- yeah, I just want him out, period. End of story. I'm really happy that it presently looks like the 2006 elections will be tough for the GOP on a national level. I like Cindy Sheehan because she hurts Bush. Period.

You essentially said -- "Bush's policy may be incompetent, but fuck-ups are better than doing nothing." It ain't necessarily so.

I watched Russert's show last Sunday -- where he had four retired Generals on to analyze the Iraq situation. They came from various political perspectives (Downing, Clark, Meigs, and another). I found it striking how their opinions of the situation in Iraq and the way it will likely look in a year differed largely by degree. e.g. They all said there will be an active insugency in the Sunni areas, and that the "Iraqi-ization" of the conflict will have to bear the burden -- but that the Iraqis are nowhere close to ready.

I was also struck by how Meigs was quietly scathing about the justifications used for the war and the way it was conducted (more so than Clark) -- if you read between the senior military double-speak. [Paraphrase -- "I think we as citizens are all frustrated by the way in which the justifications used to lead us into this war turned out to be incorrect -- and I think that the historians will tear them to shreds when the proper documents are declassified in 10, 20 or 30 years. "] It may just have been the format of the show, but not even Downing disagreed.

S_A_M

P.S. Thanks for sponsoring the Board.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Just a few snippets while I ignore the rest of your post.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Combine that with the possibility that Iraq would have/ could have given them chemical weapons and you have 1000s more dead. That justified attacking Iraq.

Not good enough. We have thousands more dead right now -- and no indication that the current threat is reduced as a result. We have cloudy prospects _at best_ for future threat reduction as a result.

However, I believe that some of the arguments used by the Dems politicians to generate dis-satisfaction with Bush are harmful to the Country, and when a politician harms my country to try and generate some desparate sliver of political gain, that gets close to treason.

See, if you substitute "GOP" for "Dem" and "support" for "dissatisfaction" -- that precisely describes what I think Bush and his supporters have done. This is why the argument is essentially irreconcilable -- and we'll have to keep chewing on each other until we are exhausted-- and only time will tell who (me) was right.

And guess what? the . . . . anti-Jew chunk of your party is sizable.

True, but this from a Republican?

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Was this in response to a post from about a month ago?

I'm just trying to make sure that your rare substantive posts get the serious answer they deserve. Unfortunately, it takes a while to wade through your output, and the union won't let me send some of that work to the guys in India.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Do you know how many deaths are attributable to Hussein since he has been in power and do you know how many people in Iraq have died since the war started?

The former number is quite big, because Hussein has been in power a while, and because he is responsible for the genocide of the Kurds and invading Iran somewhat earlier in his reign, as well as the invasion of Kuwait. In recent years, he wasn't doing nearly as much bad work.

As for the number of how many had died, we posted a while back about the only reputable academic survey of deaths attributable to the invasion. Using conventional statistical techniques, that study produced a range between something like 0 and 194,000, which the probably result somewhere in the middle -- 100,000 is not a bad shorthand. (This figure is now a year or so old, so you have to account for that as well.)

Oddly, conservatives who were all too willing to blame Hussein (rightly) for diverting Oil-for-Food money away from medicine for children, etc., do not want to consider that the various disruptions, etc., of the way might have bad indirect effects.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
We are war with people that want us wiped out. We ignored the threat for years. We can no longer. Your analogy is an insult really to the 3000 people who died on 9/11.

Fighting terrorism is not some optional TRO. It is a bet the farm fight for the company.

Too bad that our President diverted the nation's attention and resources from the war on those people in order to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
those people

Saying "those people" almost always goes with a racist or sexist or someother ist statement.

Wow Ty, good lesson! taking one small part of a post and responding to it makes it easier! 123-7