Gadarene:
I obviously did not say that, I just said it’s the only good idea anyone has come up with so far. There’s not a damn thing we’ll be able to do to stop hardcore terrorism but we can at least make the wannabes think twice before they want to start some, and “pursuing the guilty parties sort of aggressively” won’t do.
Then again, invading Libya would bring up a number of problems that probably would outweigh the benefits. So I repeat, I AM NOT ENDORSING IT. Clear enough for you?
Which brings me back to my original question. How is framing, invading, and colonizing Libya “good” in any sense of the word?
Oh, this is totally strange.
I know Fred.
I’ve sat around and done shots with him until we were incapable of holding ourselves up in our bar stools, and talked a river of shit neck-deep.
He’s an opinionated, argumentative guy, prone to hyperbole and exaggeration, but also willing to concede a point. We don’t agree on a whole lot of things, but he’s a very bright guy. His buisness card says “Commentary With Moxie,” but until now I have never gotten around to visiting his site.
All I will say is this: I have never seen Fred say in public what Bill H. has found on his website. I can’t help wondering if Fred’s going a little bit beyond his personal convictions in order to gain a bit of notoriety.
You know what? I’m gonna ask him about it. I have a feeling I know just where he’s going to be tonight. Will keep you posted.
Sofa:
If you see him, be sure and tell him to get his ass in here.
You got it, Scylla.
I’ve spoken at length with this dude about the Middle East and the Gulf War. His opinion on the Gulf War is pretty typical of the sort of things he likes to say: we should have gone in there, taken Baghdad, and occupied the country until we installed a government more suitable to the U.S.'s liking.
Rather, that’s what he meant. If I could remember exactly what he said, your eyes would pop out of your head. I’ve always just thought that’s just his sense of humor. It may go a long way toward explaining the sort of stuff he’s writing.
Wow…
Amongst all this drivel, hansel posts a copy of an exquisite, solid, well-reasoned, document written with conviction, knowledge, and avoiding any inflamatory or bigotted words…
And it is literally ignored in favor of piling on some piece of shit and his ignorant twaddle.
I mean, really guys - are we just out for the sensationalism of it all, or does someone actually want to discuss the “Different Perspective on WTC”, the essence being “we got kicked in the balls, and perhaps we should be aware of how much our posturing is just that”.
shrug
I’ve bookmarked this fellow’s site. All GD aside, from what I’ve read so far he does great rants. (“Six of every four men are child molestors” is my new short-duration favorite quote, f’r’instance.) Like all enjoyably extreme rants, they start falling apart–to varying degrees–under scrutiny. But by gob, that’s not the point of a good rant, it’s the spleen and the artfulness of expressing it.
Kern is mostly correct here. However, it is possible to be efficiently murderous and mentally deranged at the same time (think back on your 20th century history).
And while the attacks were successful, I think it is also possible to overestimate the intelligence of the planners and or actors. What about the would-be terrorist who was turned down by a flying school because he told them he was only interested in learning horizontal flying, not takeoffs or landings? And the idiots caught in New York after the attacks trying the same strategy? Let’s not confuse our lack of preparedness and follow-through with super-intelligence on the part of our adversaries.**
There are numerous references to “great moral conviction” and the like. Conviction, yes, but overpowering feelings of ethnic superiority and ethnic hatred do not make for moral conviction. Let’s stop using complimentary terms for murderous thugs.**
This is true. Comparisons to Vietnam are not quite valid though. The fight is on our soil now. There’s nowhere to go.**
[/quote]
American soldiers who marched to war cheered on by flag waving Americans in 1965 were reviled and spat upon less than three years later when they returned. **
[/quote]
This from a self-described “former director of military history”??!!! How many times does this piece of tripe have to be debunked? It is untrue, Tony. A book exposing this falsehood was well-publicized and you surely must be aware of it. (Oh, the irony of Snopes “certifying” this open letter as being by Kern but not commenting on the “spitting myth” repetition)**
Agreed.**
This last paragraph is not quite a gimme. I hear echoes of “If only the public had supported the President and military, we would have defeated North Vietnam”. Support must be based on the policies and strategies being both righteous and workable.
Overall, I give it a B-. Very much preferable to Fred.
Because it will have some effect in deterring the terrorists, as opposed to no effect, which seems to be what we’re going for now.
As I also said, that effect might not be worth the costs of such an operation, but it depends on what your priorities are.
Er, actually that is a distinct possibility.
Dons homemade T-shirt “Russia in NATO NOW!” Seriously, what was the whole “wall came down” thing about anyway? What expansionist act have they done, or supported, recently? Chechnya? Not exactly Nicaragua or Poland.[/Cold war hat permanently]
His good points: they spanked us hard, and they were not “cowards” in the fraidy-cat sense. Other good points…ah…um…military readiness, we are oversensitive to casualties, and we should respect our enemies capabilities. There must be more…scrolls hopelessly…
[QUOTE]
Wow…
Amongst all this drivel, hansel posts a copy of an exquisite, solid, well-reasoned, document written with conviction, knowledge, and avoiding any inflamatory or bigotted words…
And it is literally ignored in favor of piling on some piece of shit and his ignorant twaddle.
Amen, brother. At least I heard you.
Would somebody please re-read what the guy wrote? Or wasn’t it inflammatory enough?
I think people are reading it, they’re just finding less to debate in it than in the “Fred” article.
Forgive me if someone has said this, but it deserves to be repeated.
This guy has a column in the Washington Times.
Do you need any other proof that the Washington Times is a joke of a newspaper?
“You’re dead. You’re all dead” – Frank Sinatra
So in order to get the people responsible (bin Laden and his organization), we “frame, invade and colonize” a country (Libya) that is NOT responsible? And the fact that framing someone is a criminal act does not faze you at all?
Actually I don’t think there’s any law against framing an entire country.
Hell, we’d hardly have to “frame” Libya.
So in your opinion editorial pages in all newspapers should only print editiorial from individuals who have mainstream opinions?
Well, I didn’t see Fred last night. I’ll keep trying until I do, or I might resort to actually giving him a call. I’ve never actually interacted with this guy outside of a bar, so that seems a little weird.
I’ll try to just drag him kicking and screaming over here, instead of acting as a sort of middle-man.
Of course! It all makes sense! Mahatma Ghandi was a homo! And that Jew-boy Jesus…
Yessiree, time to let the real men run things! We can start basic training at age 4! Big Bird will show kids correct bayonet technique! Mister Rodgers can explain that that ucky corpse smell is really good, 'cause it makes God so happy!
War really does bring out the best in people! Intestines, spleen, lungs, right out there on the ground where you can see it all!
Speaking as a raving, peacenik faggot-hippy, I think this guy Reed oughta be the poster child for testosterone poisoning. Does Peggy Noonan need a date?
What do you say now that the Taliban says that bin Laden is in Afghanistan?
Scylla, just because there is no law against an act, it does not necessarily mean that said act is ethical.