Say Anything Blog

What an idiot. That pretty much lines up with this kind of idiocy.

The article in question for those who are wondering.

It brings up the possibility of nuking Mecca.

Key part:

“What is near and dear to them? They’re willing to sacrifice everything in this world for the next one. What is the pressure point that would deter them from their murderous impulses?” he said.

I guess that deserves no debate or response.  Just call him an “idiot” and an “asshole”.

So let’s take our most powerful weapon we could use against the Muslims (destruction of a Muslim “holy site") off of the table.  That’s a great dhimmi strategy.  Maybe if we just be real nice and play by their rules, they’ll just stop.  It’s only taken 1200 years.  I sure they’ll stop soon. Right?

I’ll tell you what: there are a lot of you here that refuse to even consider options that we may have to play out one day.

Additionally, a big part of the strategy is the mere threat of Mecca’s destruction.

What don’t you get about “it’s not a military target” ?!

It doesn’t mention anything about using nukes on Mecca… just “bombing.”

“What is near and dear to them? They’re willing to sacrifice everything in this world for the next one. What is the pressure point that would deter them from their murderous impulses?” he said.

So… bombing innocent civilians is going to encourage them to stop fighting us?  Like hell it will.

So let’s take our most powerful weapon we could use against the Muslims (destruction of a Muslim “holy site”) off of the table.

How do you figure that destroying a Muslim holy site is going to deter terrorists or help defeat them?

Maybe if we just be real nice and play by their rules, they’ll just stop. It’s only taken 1200 years. I sure they’ll stop soon. Right?

Bombing Mecca would be “playing by their rules.” Our rules our different.  We don’t intentionally target civilians.  When we start doing that, we are no better than terrorists ourselves.

Additionally, a big part of the strategy is the mere threat of Mecca’s destruction.  It’s almost like the mutually assured destruction threat we had with Russia and will possibly have with China in the future, only this transposed onto what the Muslims hold near and dear.  Since death is off of the table for them, this is it.

But people like Mark and Rob and many others out there are just abhorred at such an idea. Perhaps you guys forgot that there’s a major war going on?  This may be an option.  “Asshole” and “idiot” is your response?  Hm… Okay.

It doesn’t mention anything about using nukes on Mecca… just “bombing.”

Ahhh!  Tired and multi-tasking between various conversations (IM, e-mail, and here) gets me into trouble at times.

So… bombing innocent civilians is going to encourage them to stop fighting us? Like hell it will.

No.  Threatening to bomb a symbol that is not up for negotiation with our enemy should be sufficient enough to deal with this.  The key is that we have to back up our claims should the need arise.  An empty threat won’t work.  We have to be prepared for the possibility that we may actually go through.

How do you figure that destroying a Muslim holy site is going to deter terrorists or help defeat them?

Well I imagine we could get over 100,000 in one fell swoop. But seriously - it is the threat that is the deterrence.

Bombing Mecca would be “playing by their rules.”

“Playing by their rules” it would already be done.  Ditto for the entirety of Israel.  These people don’t even allow Christian Bibles into their country.  You think they would be as big as America and let a Christian symbol of equal importance stand or even survive?  Not a chance.

Our rules our different. We don’t intentionally target civilians.

You are misdirecting the argument here. The target is this huge rock that no infidel is allowed within twelve miles of. Besides, rule number one in war: win.  Rule number two: win.  We do what it takes to win Mark.  We bombed the hell out of German cities to break their will.  It is sometimes what you have to do when the shit hits the fan.

What don’t you get about “it’s not a military target” ?!

Since when Mark?  Don’t kid yourself.  We’re never going to take the option off of the table.  Whether we officially admit it or not, it’s always a possible military target. 

Your comment suggests to me that you still don’t understand the nature of the enemy and what kind of target this represents to us.  It is a religious symbol.  We are fighting a religious war whether you want to recognize it or not.  It is a military target.

It is a religious symbol. We are fighting a religious war whether you want to recognize it or not. It is a military target.

They are fighting a religious war.  We are fighting a war against terrorism, not a war against Islam.

How do you figure that destroying a Muslim holy site is going to deter terrorists or help defeat them?

Well I imagine we could get over 100,000 in one fell swoop. But seriously - it is the threat that is the deterrence.

This just tells me that you equate Islam and Islamic terrorism.  If you think that all Muslims are terrorists, there’s no point in even debating this.

You think they would be as big as America and let a Christian symbol of equal importance stand or even survive? Not a chance.

No… but I rather enjoy being morally superior to terrorists.  Winning a war isn’t worth it if you become your enemy or lose your values in the process.

They are fighting a religious war. We are fighting a war against terrorism, not a war against Islam.

Keep on telling yourself that.  I did for a long time. How one party can make itself absolutely clear in it’s intentions and the other party can blissfully ignore the reasons that they were dragged into this war in the first place is beyond me.  I understand that the West is fighting for survival and doesn’t want this to be a religious war. Doesn’t matter. The fight for survival is against a religious war thrust upon them.

This just tells me that you equate Islam and Islamic terrorism.

Bingo.  All I have to do is to look at where Islam has taken root in the world.  What do I see everywhere I look?  I see dictatorships.  I see poverty and starvation amid a sea of natural resources.  I see genocide.  I see women behind black veils getting stoned for showing their ankles and having the audacity to be seen in public walking next to a man instead of behind him.  I see 11 year old kids strapping bombs onto themselves and their parents cheering them on.  I see massive corruption and cronyism. I see terrorism.  I see all other religions and cultures illegal except for Islam and Islamic culture.  I see torture.  I see imperialism (real imperialism, not the fantasy definition that the left uses). I see Islam fighting with all of its neighbors.

I’m fast coming to the conclusion that Islam and Islamic terrorism are inseparable Mark.

Christianity was like this at one time.  You know what happened?  It went through Enlightenment.  Islam still hasn’t gone through it’s Enlightenment yet.

If you think that all Muslims are terrorists, there’s no point in even debating this.

Didn’t say that.  How about this though: there’s a good chance of them being a terrorist.

No… but I rather enjoy being morally superior to terrorists.

Well,...I also like to be alive.

Winning a war isn’t worth it if you become your enemy or lose your values in the process.

Well no shit. You just took the argument into circles. First of all, care to tell me how we are even close to this danger, if at all?  Secondly, I’m not even sure why you felt the need to say this to begin with because it didn’t address my point.  My point was - we are not in danger of or anywhere near “playing by their rules”. I then gave you an example.

I’ll have to tell you Likwidshoe, I think that the neo-con strategy for peace in the Middle East is on target.  The democratization of the Middle East is the way to get rid of idiotarian wackjobs like the al-Qaeda.

Here is a quick sketch of the argument:

* It may seem counter-intuitive, but the state-owned media play straight into the hands of the lunatic fringe elements.  It is the moderates who suffer the most from a restriction of freedom of speech.
* Growth of individual freedom carries with it the seeds of destruction of al Qaeda.
* Most people are not ideologically motivated (it’s genetics at play here), so given the option they will tend towards a policy of moderation.
* Arguments of the form that al Qaeda put forward are not currently allowed to be discussed in public, this means that “reasonable” people have no opportunity to expose the many flaws in the al Qaeda philosophy (loose use of that word there!).
* Democratization of the Middle East will lead to greater freedom of speech and will eventually force the fundamentalists out of their hold on the poor and disallusionned.

Corollaries to this argument:

* Israel and the US invasion of Iraq have nothing to do with the spread of terrorism.
* Appeasing the terrorists by “trying to make them like us” or “not provoking them” only makes the terrorists stronger.

It’s late and I’m a little foggy headed, but I think this captures the gist of the approach.  If you are right and there really are no moderates, then genocide is the only solution.  I would say that you perceive there to be no moderates simply because these are the people who currently have no voice and hence no political power in the Muslim world.

You say that we should keep the real threat of bombing Mecca on the table.  I say that doing this would be “playing by their rules,” i.e. targeting civilians.

You say that we’re not close to this danger.

I say… let’s keep it that way, and not talk about resorting to terrorist techniques (i.e. bombing civilians).

Christianity was like this at one time. You know what happened? It went through Enlightenment. Islam still hasn’t gone through it’s Enlightenment yet.

Agreed.  I’ve said this, pretty much verbatim, myself.  But I don’t think that we’re going to speed the process along by bombing innocent Muslim civilians.  Helping to foster secular constitutional republics is the way to go.

Mark J. I say… let’s keep it that way, and not talk about resorting to terrorist techniques (i.e. bombing civilians).

I thought I made it clear that this was a military target we were talking about. You may disagree, but at least acknowledge that there is a difference in scale here. What I find telling is that you equate the targetting of civilian busses and bombs in kid’s schools with the bombing a military target.  They are not anywhere close to one and the same.  It’s kind of like the argument that the left and the Islamics have been using against bombing or shooting at mosques.  “It’s a civilian place”.  Well yes,...so now the enemy knows that we have tied our hands behind our backs and now uses mosques as military bases.

In any regard, since when is it off the table that civilians will die in a major war?  When did that change?  That’s a new idea throughout the history of war, this definition of a sanitized war that the Western world has invented in the last few decades.  It’s a nice thought and all, but it’s not ever going to be reality.  I can certainly appreciate and understand the sentiment, but in the end war is war and either side will do what it takes to win it.

Carrick - your points were spot on.  I would only disagree with you when you said this,

It may seem counter-intuitive, but the state-owned media play straight into the hands of the lunatic fringe elements. It is the moderates who suffer the most from a restriction of freedom of speech.

I think that that makes sense actually.  Islam is in control of the state-owned medias in Middle Eastern countrys.  Islam, as the religion currently is right now, allows for no moderate voice.

I would say that you perceive there to be no moderates simply because these are the people who currently have no voice and hence no political power in the Muslim world.

There is no moderate Islam. There are, however, *some people in Muslim countries who don’t take the Koran at it’s literal word.  It is those few people who need a bigger voice.  It is those people who had better start pushing the Enlightenment of Islam because the Western world will get fed up one day and take care of the problem in a way that is not going to be pretty.  Right now the Western world is taking unnecessary hits and trying to spread individual freedom hoping that will help the Enlightenment process along.  For the sake of the Middle East and the Western world, I hope it works.

*Good luck finding those people. They are hard to find.  Even the so called “moderate Muslims” who are well off, educated, and Westernized will tell you that they understand and support the radicals.  This striking observation in the past few years is what has left me questioning whether “moderate Muslims” even exist in numbers greater than a paltry few.

Well at least you started reading it lik.

So you did read the whole thing after all? Her argument was certainly more immflammatory than I would make but the idea of being caught between the American Empire on one hand and fanatical opponents to America on the other is real for many people around the World. That the terrorists draw on Islam for their justification must make the pain even worse.

Interesting opinion piece from Aljazeera.  Nothing to do with bombing Mecca but an interesting point of view that doesn’t get much play in the American media.

Interesting opinion piece from Aljazeera. Nothing to do with bombing Mecca but an interesting point of view that doesn’t get much play in the American media.

I was with her until she said this, “The terrible irony is that Muslims currently find themselves helplessly trapped between two fundamentalisms, between Bush’s hammer and Bin Laden’s anvil, hostages to an extreme right wing American administration, aggressively seeking to impose its expansionist and hegemonic will over the region at gunpoint...”

That’s about as ignorant as you can get.  I stopped reading after that.

Well at least you started reading it lik.

It’s only too bad that she was a bit off in her reasoning.  The woman can’t even recognize who’s on her side.  She claims to be against Al Quada and the thought process behind their reasoning, but then she equates Al Quada with American’s actions as one and the same?  Sorry, that doesn’t even come close to passing the sniff test.  It smells like shit and it is shit.  The fact is, we are doing the job that her people are powerless to do themselves.  She may logically disagree with some of our ways and means to bring about the end of fanatical Islamism, but to equate the two sides as if they were the one and the same tells me that she lacks some basic reasoning capabilities.  If we were one and the same, she’d be dead and we’d own her children.

You view most muslims to be extreme, correct?

Yes, because the vast majority of them want one of two outcomes; that either all infidels should be dead or that all infidels should be subject to their repressive religious laws.

You also justify the war in Iraq because Saddam was slaughtering his own people, right?

I justify the war on a multitude of reasons.  This would be one of them.

So then theoretically (using your personal views), Saddam was simply killing thousands of islamic extremists. Why did that bother you?

Saddam was actually taking out the more moderate Muslims.  The Kurds, as one example, are often criticized for not following strict Islamic protocol.  Their women can walk down the street showing their faces without getting beaten and stoned.  The Kurds also allow for more economic freedom and have a measure of trust that is required for any economy to flourish.  You can see this even today as there are a bunch of newly made Kurdish business men creating wealth.

And because I don’t advocate killing people merely for their disgusting views.  There is plenty of work in the world with people who need taken out because of their actions.

That being said, I think bombing Mecca or any other holy site, would be a grave mistake. I don’t want to give any reason for these “moderate” muslims to start adopting the same techniques as extremists.

That’s just it.  They’re not “moderate” in any reasonable definition of the word.  You admit as much yourself with your use of quotations.

So you did read the whole thing after all?

No. I stopped. I knew where her argument was headed and I’m tired of reading that kind of tripe.

Her argument was certainly more immflammatory than I would make but the idea of being caught between the American Empire on one hand and fanatical opponents to America on the other is real for many people around the World.

Understood.  My issue with her thinking starts at her belief of our motives and reasons.  I don’t buy the expansionist line.  It wouldn’t be too hard for us to take over the entire region and claim it.  It is more than obvious at this point that we are not headed in that kind of direction.  For her to still say that, let alone think it, tells me what kind of person I’m dealing with.

I liked the fact that she recognized Al Quada as “extreme”.  Seems obvious, but the mindset over there is such that any simple recognition of simple truths is to be celebrated.  However, I question her definition of “extreme” when she calls the current administration “extreme right wing”.  It was obvious at that point that we are dealing with someone who doesn’t understand the political pendulum.  Bush is fairly square in the center.

It could be that she buys into the line of thinking that believes “extreme” equals actually following through on one’s word and getting things done instead of pissing around with the useless United Nations.  It is a typical line of thinking in Europe and on the left.

likwid,

Just a quick question, and its in all seriousness.  You view most muslims to be extreme, correct?  You also justify the war in Iraq because Saddam was slaughtering his own people, right?  So then theoretically (using your personal views), Saddam was simply killing thousands of islamic extremists.  Why did that bother you?  I understand your other reasons (possible WMDs and terror ties), but after this thread I am confused about this one.

I agree with you on your frustrations with the middle east.  I sometimes don’t know how “moderate” muslims in the middle east can exist*.  These moderates, while not terrorists, still oppress women and hold extremely racist and bigotted views.  They are only moderate when comparing them to suicide bombers.  So really they are still extremist, only less extreme than terrorists.

That being said, I think bombing Mecca or any other holy site, would be a grave mistake.  I don’t want to give any reason for these “moderate” muslims to start adopting the same techniques as extremists.

*I think there are moderate muslims, but they are usually ones who have moved to other parts of the world and have adopted aspects of western cultures.

sorry, the last line should say “those of us who are willing fight for your ability to do so”

Fuck. I got it right the first time

Time to go to bed

Yes andrew. But why stop there? Let’s take our appease....urr...surrend...ummm “special understanding” further by making it a mandate for everyone to learn arabic, so as not to piss off any more muslims. Also, no more pork, ever. I’ll also tell my grandfather that he must pray to his cows unstead of butcher them, because some muslims might get upset and force us to consider tactics that are “gob-smackingly vile”

Seriously though, while I think it is horrifing that we may have to consider mecca for “realignment,” it ranks a little bit below the horror we face if our enemy realizes that we will shy away from the fight because it might make us look “evil” On the global stage. And don’t feed me any of that “we musn’t risk our morality to win the fight” bullshit, because, unless you like seeing your friends and family better without their heads attached, you have to at least be open to the idea that preservation of our way of life by any means necessary may actually require us to do more than play loud rap music and supply dog collars.

In the mean time, you just sit back and hold tight to your moral superiority, while those of us who are willing fight for your ability to do so.

I’m sorry lik but if you’re not going to read the article then what’s the point of discussing it?

I discussed it well enough for you to think that I read the whole thing.

No knowledge or insight to be gained by you or me, just a reiteration of existing positions. Pass.

You think there was knowledge in that article?  Good grief.  See ya later Mike.

No. I stopped. I knew where her argument was headed and I’m tired of reading that kind of tripe.

I’m sorry lik but if you’re not going to read the article then what’s the point of discussing it? No knowledge or insight to be gained by you or me, just a reiteration of existing positions. Pass.

I thought I made it clear that this was a military target we were talking about. You may disagree, but at least acknowledge that there is a difference in scale here. What I find telling is that you equate the targeting of civilian buses and bombs in kid’s schools with the bombing a military target. They are not anywhere close to one and the same.

No.  You made it clear that you regard it as a military target because, to you, we are fighting a holy war, and Islam is the enemy.

And no, I’m not saying that holy sites are totally off limits for bombing.  We’ve bombed mosques in Iraq when insurgents were using it as a military base.  But when it is not being used for military purposes it is not a military target to us.

There is no moderate Islam. There are, however, *some people in Muslim countries who don’t take the Koran at it’s literal word.

That’s like saying there is no moderate Christianity.  Have you read the Bible?  More than once, God commands the slaying of innocent heathens.

“And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and woman: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.” (Ezekiel 9:5-6)

Yahweh Akbar, indeed.

And because I don’t advocate killing people merely for their disgusting views. There is plenty of work in the world with people who need taken out because of their actions.

You advocated killing 100,000 people because of their religious views.  That’s what started this whole thing.

If Islam is so hopeless as you have broadly painted it, why are we even bothering in Iraq?  If their extremism is so ingrained, starting up seedling democracies is futile.  If you regard all Muslims as potential terrorists, why don’t you advocate the complete destruction of the Middle East?

It is those people who had better start pushing the Enlightenment of Islam because the Western world will get fed up one day and take care of the problem in a way that is not going to be pretty.

Ahh… there it is.

In any regard, since when is it off the table that civilians will die in a major war? When did that change?

You’re holding one position and arguing another.  You were talking about the intentional bombing of Mecca… a religious shrine full of civilians.  This is different than collateral damage.  When terrorists start stockpiling bombs at Mecca, then we’ll talk.

I discussed it well enough for you to think that I read the whole thing.

Very clever lik.

You think there was knowledge in that article? Good grief. See ya later Mike.

The honest guy would have slagged the article as tripe and refused to consider its argument without reading it at all. You took the hack’s route by reading until you hit the disagreeable bits and then dismissing it.

I’ll also tell my grandfather that he must pray to his cows unstead of butcher them, because some muslims might get upset and force us to consider tactics that are “gob-smackingly vile”

I’m not too familiar with Islam, but I thought cow worship was Hindu.

And don’t feed me any of that “we musn’t risk our morality to win the fight” bullshit,

I’m not too interested in our morality.  The only reason I would like the US to maintain a sense, or atleast appearance, of morality is to avoid conflict with other nations.  We already have a short list of allies.  I don’t want to risk making that list shorter.  Even worse, I don’t want to risk making our list of enemies longer.

you have to at least be open to the idea that preservation of our way of life by any means necessary may actually require us to do more than play loud rap music and supply dog collars.

I assume you are referring to the allegations of “torture”.  If they are all the tactics that the US uses, than I don’t see how they could be classified as torture.  You seem to think I’m entirely against torture.  I would have no problem if a high ranking member of al Queda was roughed up in order to get vital information.

Now to address the real point of your above passage.  I agree that we must take the neccessary steps in order survive.  However, I disagree that bombing Mecca would have a desired effect.  These people already do not value life.  If you destroy the only thing that matters to them, you will only bring more aide to their cause.  I’m not afraid that we won’t be able to win a war with the middle east on our own.  I’m afraid of the cost of that victory.

In the mean time, you just sit back and hold tight to your moral superiority, while those of us who are willing fight for your ability to do so.

Its not about moral superiority, its about diplomacy.  We use it so that “those willing to fight” can remain a last resort.

Mark J wrote, That’s like saying there is no moderate Christianity. Have you read the Bible? More than once, God commands the slaying of innocent heathens.

No it’s not and it doesn’t compare. Christianity doesn’t require literal interpretation of the Bible.  Islam does require literal interpretation of the Koran. I thought we went over this already.  Christianity has gone through Enlightenment.  Christianity is now about loving thy neighbor, acceptance, tolerance, etc.  On the other hand we have Islam which literally means “submission”.  And if you don’t submit, watch out.  If you are a former Muslim, that’s a death threat with no chance of admittance back.  This wouldn’t even be an argument if we were talking about just a few wayward individuals and not the whole of the religion as practiced by Muslims.  In a lot of the ways that I just mentioned, the practice of Islam is the antithesis of Christianity.

Yahweh Akbar, indeed.

Red herring, indeed.

You advocated killing 100,000 people because of their religious views.

No I didn’t Mark.  Remind me to not use sarcasm around you.  You are liable to take it seriously.  Even saying, “but seriously” after my sarcasm wasn’t enough of a hint.

That’s what started this whole thing.

Actually it started when I called you out on your flippant dismissal of the idea by calling the guy an “asshole” instead of presenting a solid argument.  I say that you dismissed the idea flippantly because it’s not like you didn’t have an argument.  Just look at this thread.  You usually make a pretty solid argument Mark. I was actually kind of surprised that I disagreed with you on something that you believed didn’t even deserve an argument.  Same goes for Rob.

Looking back at the comment in question and the following responses, I can see where the confusion began on both of our parts.  We were talking different things there for a couple of comments.

If Islam is so hopeless as you have broadly painted it, why are we even bothering in Iraq?

Because there is still hope.  And, as liberals love to point out, Iraq was/is a largely secular state as far as “secular states” in Islamic countries go.  Plus they have shown us during the January elections that they don’t want Islamic rule.  They are thirsty for democracy coupled with some kind of representative republic.  The mission was a gamble to begin with (like everything else in life I suppose), and it looks like there’s a good chance of it paying off.  The Enlightenment just may be beginning and America might have been the catalyst bringing about the change.  We’ll see.  I have less hope for the religion than I do for the people hungering for freedom.  It is the religion that needs destroyed as it stands in its current incarnation and only people within the religion can bring about that change.

If their extremism is so ingrained, starting up seedling democracies is futile. If you regard all Muslims as potential terrorists, why don’t you advocate the complete destruction of the Middle East?

I haven’t lost all hope for an Islamic Enlightenment Mark.  We might avoid a total all out Holy War.  Or we might be dragged into it kicking and screaming where we can no longer delude ourselves as to the face of the enemy.  It remains to be seen.

You’re holding one position and arguing another. You were talking about the intentional bombing of Mecca… a religious shrine full of civilians. This is different than collateral damage.

I’m not holding one position and arguing another, just asking a question. The question still remains: when did that get taken off the table?  It’s a weird concept: a war and nobody except soldiers die!  How nice. It’s a concept that only the Western world embraces and one that sounds good on the surface.  I’d agree that it is a good idea during normal operations were we kick ass and aren’t trying to defeat the people, but their government.  But when the enemy is or becomes one that is inseparable from the people?  No. It’s always on the table.

MikeAdamson wrote, The honest guy would have slagged the article as tripe and refused to consider its argument without reading it at all. You took the hack’s route by reading until you hit the disagreeable bits and then dismissing it.

“The honest guy” would have done that? No. I had no reason to not give it a chance.  I only dismissed it after it became tripe. After you made a deal about it, I went back and read the entire article.  It was had more triffling bullshit than I would have imagined.  I should have held back.

In any regard, it was you who took the hack’s route by jumping ship when discussion of the article began. Galling when you consider that you’re the one who brought up the article to begin with. Why did you even bring it up? It appears as though that you just didn’t like the discussion so you made some vague complaint and asked, “what’s the point”.  You then passed.  That’s fine.  But why don’t you hold to your word?  Just pass like you said you were going to.

Andrew wrote, However, I disagree that bombing Mecca would have a desired effect. These people already do not value life. If you destroy the only thing that matters to them, you will only bring more aide to their cause.

That’s a good point and I believe it is the strongest argument against the idea.

and likwidshoe said: bla of bla bla bla, to the bla dee bla bla etceter-bla...AND DOWN WITH ISLAM!

You’re full of sound and fury signifying the same thing...narrow minded cynicism. It must be tough for tourists visiting their homeland...dodging blood splatter and watching people beaten and raped all day. Same with in your own neighborhood eh?...how can you sleep at night with all the screaming and death threats?

your written views are cast in stone, that discussing topics with you is like talking to the wind and that no matter how many inches of column space your words take up, it’s just static monotonal chatter.

This is the textbook approach to argumentation that started with Nixon and continues today.  Go on the offensive, hold firm to your opinion as if your life depended on it, and never give an inch.  The whole “piss on the Koran” thread is a perfect example.  It may feel good and self-satisfying, but makes you an easy write-off.

lik...I passed because you said you stopped reading the article. I linked the article because, as I said in my initial post, it provides a point of view that doesn’t get much airing in the American media. I enjoy the give and take of conservative blogs because I can contrast my views and opinions with others and learn stuff.

There’s no give and take with you because you spout your stuff and never consider the content of any opposing positions. There’s certainly no learning because I’ve read the stuff you post in thousands of other places. What I’m trying to say in my mealy mouthed way is not to stop what you’re doing but at least be cognisant of the fact that your written views are cast in stone, that discussing topics with you is like talking to the wind and that no matter how many inches of column space your words take up, it’s just static monotonal chatter.

Carl B. said, You’re full of sound and fury signifying the same thing…narrow minded cynicism.

Is that what my arguments look like to a nihilist?  Huh. I had always wondered. Carl, you pretty much admit that your own opinion holds no water with even yourself because you just don’t care, so why should I or anybody else care about what you have to say?

MikeAdamson said, There’s no give and take with you because you spout your stuff and never consider the content of any opposing positions.

Well that is too bad because I think that we have had some good back and forth on a couple of subjects in the past. But whatever. I don’t know how you could even say that to begin with because I take those opposing positions and address them head on. If I don’t do that, I’ll be called on it and won’t be able to get away with it.

And here’s a little secret Mark: if we are in an argument and you make a point and that I don’t address: it’s because I either agree with that point or it is because I’ve already made mine and you have brought up a point that stands strong. Just so you know.

There’s certainly no learning because I’ve read the stuff you post in thousands of other places.

I guess you’ve already ruled out the idea that maybe I was learning from you. Anyways, I didn’t know I was here to teach you. I’m here for the conversation about the politics I’m passionate about.  Simple solution here Mike: stop reading what I write.  And look at it realistically: if I convince you of my position, that’s a bonus.  My main goal is to convince the audience.  Why do you think that political shows on TV pit two hardline ideologues against each other?  Sure,..it’s good ratings, but the other reason is to convince the audience.  There is no way that the ideologues will convince each other and it was never the point to begin with.

What I’m trying to say in my mealy mouthed way is not to stop what you’re doing but at least be cognisant of the fact that your written views are cast in stone, that discussing topics with you is like talking to the wind and that no matter how many inches of column space your words take up, it’s just static monotonal chatter.

Reiterated from above: I’m here to convince the audience and assume that each thread is the first time someone has seen my views.  But I have to ask: if you believe that, then why are you wasting your time?

moderninstances gives us, This is the textbook approach to argumentation that started with Nixon and continues today. Go on the offensive, hold firm to your opinion as if your life depended on it, and never give an inch. The whole “piss on the Koran” thread is a perfect example. It may feel good and self-satisfying, but makes you an easy write-off.

This is the textbook approach to a particular brand of online argumentation that started with weak-minded IRC users and continues today.  Go on the offensive, ignore the real topic, and be an make stupid proclamations.  This comment is a perfect example.  It may feel good and self-satisfying, but makes one an easy write-off.

Now feel free to finally add something to the subject at hand moderninstances.  This juvenile and silly “me too” bullshit is tiring.  Do you even know what the topic is?

Now feel free to finally add something to the subject at hand moderninstances. This juvenile and silly “me too” bullshit is tiring. Do you even know what the topic is?

Nope.

After reading more into the comments that inspired this post, I wanted to say one last thing.

It seems as if the good senator is merely stating that we should not take the THREAT of bombing mecca off the table, lest we start falling more into the trap of becoming the “paper tiger” OBL likes to think we are.

I realize that, because this is an online chat forum, it is hard to speak in anything more than generalities. So, let me be clear: I do find the thought of bombing Mecca repulsive. I am not the bloodthirsty neo-con that mouthbreathers on the left like to paint me. The difference between me and those who accuse me of insensitivity is the fact that, while I do not derive pleasure in the POSSIBILITY that we MAY have to resort to less than congenial tactics to protect our civilians, many on the other side are so against anything resembling a show of force that they seem to want to spot these filth a nuclear blast in America before they even consider a response.

I would like to ask any who find even having this threat (read: contingency plan) totally out of the realm of possibility what plan of action, knowing how little these scum value anything (including life), would they take to ensure that our enemy knows not to fuck with us. In short, if this PLAN is so repulsive, come up with one that is less repugnant to you that would accomplish the same goals.

In the end, no matter your politics, we must remember that we are in this together. This division of stratagies only goes further to strengthen the resolve of our enemies, who know they cannot defeat us on their own. We as a people need to finally realize the true threat this derision poses, because if we don’t, the thousands of Americians who are pushing for us to lose this war might just get their way.

What will it take for this country to put self-preservation of our way of life over petty politics and come together to fight the enemy as one?

Son of America

Except that you’re being more than a little disingenuos about Iraq and Afghanistan.  For one, we’re still in Iraq.  Still fighting.  Progress is being made there.  There are setbacks and achievments, we just don’t hear about it as much as there isn’t as much partisan strife over that conflict.

As for Iraq, the war was not on false pretenses.  Pretty much everyone in the whole freakin’ world thought Saddam had WMD’s, and his past sponsorship of terrorism is/was no secret.

The ideology of the people who hit us (extreme Islam) is born in the middle east.  A middle east that is largely ruled by oppressive regimes.  If we want to defeat that ideology we must spread freedom to those regimes.  A good place to start, after Afghanistan, was Iraq.

I know you don’t accept that reasoning, but I do.  And, if Bush’s re-election tells us anything, so do the majority of Americans.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

If proof for the terrorists of our resolve (and what the consequences are for attacking is) is the objective, then I fully support...bombing the terrorists and not some symbolic city where there may or may not be terrorists.

If there are terrorists in Mecca I fully support attacking that city.  I don’t think it should be attacked just because the city plays an important part in their ideology.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

What will it take for this country to put self-preservation of our way of life over petty politics and come together to fight the enemy as one?

Amen.  Thing is, we had that chance right after 9/11, but it was the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses that set the partisan light ablaze again.  Up until then, I actually thought Bush was doing a pretty good job.  The only major issue that had come up in his term before 9/11 was stem cell research.  I thought that his position (continue research, but only on existing cell strains) was a pretty good compromise; it didn’t make anyone really happy, but it kept the door open for further discussion.  It was his “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Then, after 9/11, no one thought going into Afghanistan was a bad idea; after all, we were going to get the guys who did this to us.  But not long after that, we abandoned that idea, and we’ve been torn apart ever since.

M.I. I halfheartedly agree with your last post. I do concede that we should have gone into Afghanistan after 9/11, if for nothing more than to finish the job Clinton started. But, I digress. The point where I tend to disagree is this idea that the war in Iraq was fought under false pretenses. At the time, EVERYONE, not just Republicans, were willing to bet the farm that Saddam had WMD’s in Iraq. And in the aftermath of the WTC attack, the U.S. was extremely sensitive to another attack. Why is it so unconcievable to not see Saddam, a dictator who wanted nothing more to see the U.S. in ruins, as a huge threat to our national security.
I get so mad when people try to paint Bush as some ignorant child except when it comes to the war in Iraq. If the left wonders why people don’t listen to him, think about this: If Bush is so stupid, how did he orchestrate the most elaborate cover-up in history? You cannot have it both ways.

The bottom line is, at the time, we WERE ALL IN AGREEMENT that Saddam was a legitamite threat to the U.S. It is downright disengenous to “convienently forget” that fact so as to further this ridiculous conspiracy theory.

I do believe that Bush has his faults in the way he has handled the war. but, I do also believe that he cannot be faulted for running with the preception that MANY IN THE GLOBAL COMMONITY HAD of the nuclear threat Saddam posed and, in the spirit of defense, engaged in this war. But now, the left likes to pretend they knew all along that, not only did Saddam have no WMD’s, but he wasn’t the bad guy that everybody thought he was. This thinking is exactly the political division that I was talking about in a previous post. No matter what Bush does, in the eyes of the left, he loses.

That is simply pathetic.

Sorry for the long post. I appreciate the debate M.I. sorry if I get a little riled up, I’m Scottish. We’re like that.

Son of America

By the way. “this what happens, when you FUCK A STRANGER IN THE ASS!”

The ideology of the people who hit us (extreme Islam) is born in the middle east. A middle east that is largely ruled by oppressive regimes. If we want to defeat that ideology we must spread freedom to those regimes. A good place to start, after Afghanistan, was Iraq.

See, now I can actually buy that.  I could have been persuaded that the best defense is a good offense, but the administration didn’t take the time to make that case.  Instead, they pushed stories about mobile bio labs, yellowcake, and “they can hit us in 45 minutes.” I dispute that “everyone” thought Saddam had them.  In fact, the inspectors were finding out that that was not the case.

Re: the next best place to go: Iraq was well contained when we invaded.  I would suggest that Sudan, where Islamic fundamentalists are committing genocide, would be a better option if we want to take on the terrorists on their own turf.

I don’t know if it’s because I’m Scottish, but it looks like I can’t spell.

Let me know if you need a translation

The President chose to highlight WMD’s as his primary reason for war.  His claims were backed up by CIA intelligence as well as British and Italian intelligence.  He used that intelligence to make his decision and then his case to the American people and the world.

That intelligence turned out to be largely wrong.

That doesn’t invalidate the fact that Saddam was sponsoring terrorism.  It doesn’t invalidate the fact that a stable Iraq will go a long way toward stablizing the entire region.

You say that had Bush used the reasoning I used in my previous comment you would have supported the war.  I ask you why you aren’t supporting the war, as my reasoning is apparently valid to you despite the WMD’s mistake (which, by the way, can hardly be blamed on the President).

As for there being other areas more deserving of invasion than Iraq, I think Iraq was chosen because of its proximity to Afghanistan.  Its much easier I would think, from a logistics stand point, to carry on a two-front battle in Afghanistan and Iraq than Afghanistan and another nation.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

If it isn’t Scottish spell-check, it’s shite!

I’ll respond to your posts later, in a meeting now.

MI:

The only major issue that had come up in his term before 9/11 was stem cell research.

Time for a Route 60:

Actually, the only part that Bush has applied any brakes to is embryonic stem-cell (ESC) research, for which the technological advantages have been way over sold. The basic problem is that ESC is not a scalable clinical technology. Estimates are you would need several thousand embryos for a single treatment, with the associated sociological questions about “embryo farming” and the impact of that on women.  Secondly, the totipotency of ESCs is likely going to be a hinderance towards the clinical application of ESCs.  “Totipotency” refers to the ability of an ESC to assume the form of any type of adult cell.  The problem is that, you inject ESCs into e.g. a damaged nerve, you might end up getting other cell types than neurons, and these other cells often develop into tumorous growths.  Thirdly, injecting ESC from a donor has all of the intrinsic issues with immunological rejection of transplant of adult cells.

To make matters clear, I am absolutely in favor of embryonic stem cell research, and think that the current restrictions are utterly silly… especially when you see how many embryos get discarded at a fertility clinic in a year.  At the least, there should be a regulated mechanism for routing these embryos into research rather than just discarding them. There is an incredible amount that can be learned about cell biology from embryonic stem-cell research, but I have to say “piffle” towards all of the highly-inflated claims of its utility in clinical applications.

A more realistic approach is to learn how to harvest and culture adult stem cells of the same type as the damaged cells and use these to seed new tissue growth.  In the future, I really think that this will be the technological basis of spinal-cord repair, limb replacement and the other biotech wonders held out for stem cell research…

yeah, likwidshoe...I’m a nihilist...pfff...go watch Lebowski again for a brushup on pop culture, then open the newspaper and see how wonderfully rape and abuse free our own nation is. Behavior is secular. I was wondering, lik...living amongst so many muslims yourself...which DO they do more: throw rocks or point and laugh? Do you pack, because the threat to your life and wellbeing is so imminent? Do you feel their beady little eyes searing the very fabric of your soul as you walk to the store? You’re a classic case.

Rob:

I know you don’t accept that reasoning, but I do. And, if Bush’s re-election tells us anything, so do the majority of Americans.

Ironically, I voted for Bush in 2004 but not 2000. I was against the invasion, at least for the reasons stated at the time.  Like many, I felt like I was being sold a bill of goods over the WMD meme.  I was aware of the think-tank studies of Cheney, Wolfowitz, Pearle etc. and their plan for democratization of the middle east, and had accepted the fact that a policy decision to go to war with Iraq occurred well before Congress authorized the use of force. Hence, the DSM was “very old news” to me and had zero impact on “my feeling betrayed and lied to” (a DNC crapped-up meme if there ever was one).

After the invasion, I recognized the stakes involved and of course wanted and still want to see our country come through this trial as well as possible.  In this respect, weighing Bush with his successes and failures against Kerry with his checkered past, ultimately it was over the recognition of the importance of success in Iraq that I voted for Bush.

So for me at least, my vote for Bush was much more complex than a simple endorsement of our initial decision to go to war in Iraq.

Check out the big brain on Carrick! 

You say that had Bush used the reasoning I used in my previous comment you would have supported the war. I ask you why you aren’t supporting the war, as my reasoning is apparently valid to you despite the WMD’s mistake (which, by the way, can hardly be blamed on the President).

Doesn’t the buck stop there?  Isn’t that part of the job description?  If the President isn’t accountable when he leads the nation to war, then who is?

Taking your assertion that it was a big mistake based on faulty intelligence as read, it still would have been nice if the President who led us into the war would just admit that he had made a mistake.  Part of the problem that many of us have is that the administration gives off the air of infallability when that’s clearly not the case.  Remember when Bush was asked if he had made any mistakes in conducting the war, and he couldn’t name one?  I make a hundred mistakes every day, and I’m just some putz.  Accountability has been a major issue for critics of this administration.  George Tenet, the guy responsible for all of that bad intelligence, gets a medal!  I think you’d be surprised at how many people who oppose the president would be a lot less so if he would just admit that he’s human, and take ownership of his mistakes.

The bottom line is, at the time, we WERE ALL IN AGREEMENT that Saddam was a legitamite threat to the U.S.

We were all in agreement that Saddam was a bad guy, but not a threat to the U.S.  As I argue above, he was well contained; he couldn’t fly over half his country, he was embargoed and sanctioned up to his eyeballs. 

We can debate and disagree on whether Bush was telling the truth, manipulating intelligence, or somewhere in between, until the cows come home; I don’t think we’re going to change any minds on that. 

Let me suggest that we put that aside, and look at how convincingly he stated his case, not only to the American public, but to the global community.  And yes, I know the argument that the U.S. has the right to protect its interests without the agreement of the U.N. or the global community.  But the polling data before the war shows that most Americans wanted broad support, as we did in the first Gulf war.  We did not gain that broad support; the “coalition of the willing” was missing most of the major powers of the world.

I think we can all agree that there was staunch opposition to going to war in Iraq well before it happened.  The largest anti-war rallies in history were held all across the country.  A large segment of the population was not (yet) convinced that war in Iraq was the right course of action.  I say yet, because I believe that more people could have been on board if the administration had been more patient and laid out their strategy more clearly, including the post-war strategy. 

Bottom line is that there was a case to be made for going into Iraq, but for me and many others, the administration was not successful in presenting a convincing argument.

Now, that’s all behind us.  We’re there, and we need to figure out a way to win.  Like good campers, we need to leave the place in better shape than when we found it.  Name-calling, on either side, does not help.  Questioning the patriotism of opponents of the war, saying that we don’t support the troops or that we just “don’t get it,” only creates more division, and is never going to bring about the unity you seek.

The whole WMD’s thing is bullshit all around, a wonderful distraction and reactionary ploy in a much greater game. The gubmunt could have planted WMD’s if they’d have wanted to and said “see?” but they didn’t. If you paid attention to the chief inspector defending his position on saying the whole thing was a waste of time, you’d have heard him say he saw lots of instances of “our side” doing very no-no things in conjunction with “the enemy”, but the higher ups told him to keep his mouth such, it’s a battle he won’t win. Find his big cnn or whatever interview, you catch him talking about it in periphery of defending his own allegience to our nation, but for only about a minute and it’s VERY telling. Grossly paraphrasing, he basically says “people question my patriotism, but I COULD have made noise about all this stuff I saw our own side doing and I didn’t...partially because they told me it would not be in my own best interests and they’d make sure it went nowhere.” I’d be interested in a copy myself, as I’ve been unable to find it online or otherwise since I saw it on CNN or CNBC or something...somebody’s gotta have it taped, or be able to locate a transcript.

Taking your assertion that it was a big mistake based on faulty intelligence as read, it still would have been nice if the President who led us into the war would just admit that he had made a mistake. Part of the problem that many of us have is that the administration gives off the air of infallability when that’s clearly not the case.

Unless I’m not understanding you, you’re sending me mixed messages.  You seem to think that going into Iraq was a good thing to do...but don’t like the President so are hesitant to support the war.  Which seems like rather petty reasoning to me, no offense intended.

George Tenet, the guy responsible for all of that bad intelligence, gets a medal!

I still cringe when i think of that.  Though your point about having the President fess up to mistakes, I think there’s more at play here than you might imagine.  We have troops putting their lives on the line for a mission they believe in.  What’s it say to them when we have their commander-in-chief back at home constantly apologizing for perceived mistakes to make people like you feel batter?

We were all in agreement that Saddam was a bad guy, but not a threat to the U.S. As I argue above, he was well contained; he couldn’t fly over half his country, he was embargoed and sanctioned up to his eyeballs.

And yet he was a sponsor of terrorism in Israel and elsewhere.  He had ties with al Qaeda.  And lets not forget all the payments to France, Russia, etc. through the oil for food scandal.  How much longer was he going to stay “contained”?

I don’t buy the containment thing at all.

Let me suggest that we put that aside, and look at how convincingly he stated his case, not only to the American public, but to the global community. And yes, I know the argument that the U.S. has the right to protect its interests without the agreement of the U.N. or the global community. But the polling data before the war shows that most Americans wanted broad support, as we did in the first Gulf war. We did not gain that broad support; the “coalition of the willing” was missing most of the major powers of the world.

We had Great Britain.  Spain.  Italy.  Australia.  Japan.

We didn’t have Russia, Germany or France.  Seems pretty evenly split to me.

The largest anti-war rallies in history were held all across the country.

Bigger then the ones during Vietnam?  I don’t think so.  Not that it really matters, but you’re being a bit misleading about the extent of the anti-war movement.  Lets not forget that even after all those huge rallies you’ve described the majority of Americans put the man responsible for the war back in office.

Bottom line is that there was a case to be made for going into Iraq, but for me and many others, the administration was not successful in presenting a convincing argument.

Well, for me and a lot of other people the President did present a convincing argument.  I guess its just a matter of opinion, but again you seem to be basing your view of the war on your view of the President.

I would never have liked Kerry, but if he had made the decision to go into Iraq instead of Bush I would have supported that.

Now, that’s all behind us. We’re there, and we need to figure out a way to win. Like good campers, we need to leave the place in better shape than when we found it. Name-calling, on either side, does not help. Questioning the patriotism of opponents of the war, saying that we don’t support the troops or that we just “don’t get it,” only creates more division, and is never going to bring about the unity you seek.

Agreed, though I’m not sure why you’re bringing that up right now.  I haven’t called you any names of questioned your patriotism.  I think I’m typically pretty good at avoiding that kind of thing (though I am, admittedly, a bit of a hot head).

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Unless I’m not understanding you, you’re sending me mixed messages. You seem to think that going into Iraq was a good thing to do…but don’t like the President so are hesitant to support the war. Which seems like rather petty reasoning to me, no offense intended.

None taken.  I’m not being clear, though, because I didn’t mean to imply that I thought going into Iraq was a good thing to do when we did it.  I was just taking as an assumption your statement that the intelligence was faulty.  Personally, I didn’t really have much of an opinion about Bush; as I said above, before 9/11, I thought he was pretty reasonable.

Though your point about having the President fess up to mistakes, I think there’s more at play here than you might imagine. We have troops putting their lives on the line for a mission they believe in. What’s it say to them when we have their commander-in-chief back at home constantly apologizing for perceived mistakes to make people like you feel batter?

I was very careful to avoid the word “apology.” I understand what you’re saying about bolstering troop morale.  But surely there’s a middle ground between hubris and groveling? 

We had Great Britain. Spain. Italy. Australia. Japan.

We didn’t have Russia, Germany or France. Seems pretty evenly split to me.

We had the governments of UK and Spain with us, but the populations of those countries were firmly opposed.  The three we didn’t have are some biggies.  Anyway, we could dicker over numbers ad naseaum, I still stand by my contention that great numbers of people were not convinced that it was the right thing to do at the time.

Well, for me and a lot of other people the President did present a convincing argument. I guess its just a matter of opinion, but again you seem to be basing your view of the war on your view of the President.

Sure, it was obviously convincing for some.  But I believe that if Bush had done a better job, there would have been less opposition, both on the population and government levels. It has nothing to do with his personality, but his ability to persuade.

Agreed, though I’m not sure why you’re bringing that up right now. I haven’t called you any names of questioned your patriotism. I think I’m typically pretty good at avoiding that kind of thing (though I am, admittedly, a bit of a hot head).

This wasn’t directed at you, it was a general comment.  It was referencing a call to unity by Son of America above.  That unity will never happen if partisans on both sides of the aisle continue to drive a wedge between us.

I’m not sure if I got to everything or have been clear, could be the Nyquil (fighting off a cold).

He did a so-so job on his sale of the importance of invading Iraq.

This brings it back around to what I’ve been trying to say; there was a case to be made, he didn’t do a good job of making it.  That has to do not only with intelligence “mistakes” but also with the framing of the argument. 

Don’t conflate responsibility with accountability. Just saying that the President is ultimately accountable for everything that happens under his administration doesn’t absolve those responsible for their mistakes. Nor would replacing the president under the “he is ultimate accountable” meme actually fix any of the systemic problems in our (and the rest of the world’s) intelligence methodologies that failed us so miserably.

“Accountable” is exactly the word I used above.  I’m not talking about election or removal, just being accountable to the American people, and not just to the ones who voted for him.  If Bush had just stood up and said something like “we made a mistake, and it will not happen again under my watch,” it would have gone a long way toward restoring his credibility for a lot of people.  But that kind of talk just isn’t coming out of the administration, for anything.

ModernInstances:

Doesn’t the buck stop there? Isn’t that part of the job description? If the President isn’t accountable when he leads the nation to war, then who is

Don’t conflate responsibility with accountability.  Just saying that the President is ultimately accountable for everything that happens under his administration doesn’t absolve those responsible for their mistakes.  Nor would replacing the president under the “he is ultimate accountable” meme actually fix any of the systemic problems in our (and the rest of the world’s) intelligence methodologies that failed us so miserably. 

Nor would it be a sensible thing unless Bush had personally created the problems in our intelligence community.  In my opinion, most of the blame goes to Clinton and his apathy towards intelligence (and his general apathy towards governance in general to be truthful).

Don’t get me wrong… I’m not deifying Bush by any means.  He has made plenty of “sins of commission” to offset Clinton’s “sins of omission.” And he really is a lousy chief spokesman for our country.  He did a so-so job on his sale of the importance of invading Iraq.  Not that, in retrospect, we ever could have convinced France-with-its-hands-in-other-peoples-pockets or Russia in any case:  They simply had too much too lose with the deposing of Saddam and his totalitarian regime.  Ever want proof that economics trumps principle?  Just look at socialist countries: It is a consistent pattern of behavior for them.

If Bush had just stood up and said something like “we made a mistake, and it will not happen again under my watch,” it would have gone a long way toward restoring his credibility for a lot of people.

This is a point well taken.

I still stand by my contention that great numbers of people were not convinced that it was the right thing to do at the time.

Fair enough, though from my standpoint a great leader is somebody who does the right thing regardless of its popularity with the masses.  I’m fairly confident that President Bush will be exonerated from the abuse of his critics by history.  A few decades down the road people are going to see that Iraq was the right decision.

But surely there’s a middle ground between hubris and groveling?

There is, and I think the President has gone there.  I’m much too tired to try and look it up now, but I seem to remember the President saying, pretty plainly, that the WMD’s aren’t/weren’t there.  He didn’t confess to a “mistake,” and certainly didn’t grovel enough to please the blood-thirsty media, but he did talk about it.  I’m not sure how much more a person can reasonably expect from him.

Sure, it was obviously convincing for some. But I believe that if Bush had done a better job, there would have been less opposition, both on the population and government levels. It has nothing to do with his personality, but his ability to persuade.

If there had been less opposition and more support for the President would your opinions have changed on the war?

This wasn’t directed at you, it was a general comment. It was referencing a call to unity by Son of America above. That unity will never happen if partisans on both sides of the aisle continue to drive a wedge between us.

Agreed.

If Bush had just stood up and said something like “we made a mistake, and it will not happen again under my watch,” it would have gone a long way toward restoring his credibility for a lot of people. But that kind of talk just isn’t coming out of the administration, for anything.

And from my perspective such a statement would be demoralizing for our troops in Iraq.  That’s just my opinion though.

By the way, this is probably the most civilized discussion I’ve ever had about the Iraq war on the internet.  Thank you very much, MI.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

[...] A few days ago we had an interesting discussion about Rep. Tancredo’s comments about bombing Mecca. [...]

By the way, this is probably the most civilized discussion I’ve ever had about the Iraq war on the internet. Thank you very much, MI.

Well, we’ll see if we can change that!

I have two reactions to this.  First, it’s always my pleasure to conduct a reasonable debate on any subject, thank you for your reciprocation.  Second, it makes me very sad that political discourse has gotten to a point where we feel compelled to thank one another for being reasonable and civil. 

If there had been less opposition and more support for the President would your opinions have changed on the war?

I’m assuming that we’re talking about the period right up to the beginning of the war, late 2002/early 2003.  My opinion of the president, personally, had no bearing on my opinion on the war.  As I’ve said elsewhere, I thought he was doing an OK job from the stem cell decision through the invasion of Afghanistan.  It’s when he took his eye off of Afghanistan, where the people who did this to us were, and started to diverge from what I believe to be the critical path of fighting terrorism that he lost my support.

Implicit in your question is the conflation of opposition to the president’s policies with personal dislike of the man.  I’m not saying that this doesn’t happen, but I think that most of us don’t operate that way.  Are there people who hate Bush and don’t like anything he does?  Sure.  Just as there were people who hated Clinton that way.  I was living in Virginia when Clinton was elected.  Before he was even inaugurated, I saw a bumper sticker on a neighbor’s car that said “Clinton/Gore, Out in Four.” Talk about pre-judging.  I don’t want to sound like an old man, but there was a day when opposition to a president’s policies did not automatically mean one had any feelings about the man at all personally. Bottom line here is that I think we (as a people) need to remove this from our list of assumptions when discussing politics.

To Mark//
I have nothing to say much ,once I have read your stupid idea concern “BOME MECCA”.Let Try then !!!! you will see how the real powerful of muslim people in all walk of life will union and gather around the state and demolish the sparkling 50 star in to the flat land.when that time happen,you will see the 3rd world war,i mean it.Be nice and speak-put the created idea instead of
discourage or dis appointed someone.Religious is very very sensitive which is not suppose to deal with politic or any idea concerning to TERRORIST even there are some cases study.

you will see how the real powerful of muslim people in all walk of life will union and gather around the state and demolish the sparkling 50 star in to the flat land.

What? Em, excuse me? There are mountains here. Dumbass.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

you will see how the real powerful of muslim people in all walk of life will union and gather around the state and demolish the sparkling 50 star in to the flat land.when that time happen,you will see the 3rd world war,

Yeah right. Now you go ahead and run hide behind your women and children.

TANSTAAFL

u know what lets see u lot bomb mecca we know our god allah is with us lets c how far that bomb will get thier i bet u it will turn around and go back to the 1 that let it go no1 can bomb the holy house off our allah