“…That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq…”
Colin Powell, Cairo, Feburary 24, 2001
Contrast and compare.
IOW, the total US casualties during that decade totaled zero. Claims that “they were getting better at it” are not based on any results they achieved. Meanwhile, Saddam was, in fact, contained. Yet to you that’s “untenable”.
IOW, the worst case hypothetical situation under the containment approach is exactly what Bush has provided us, and unnecessarily at that. Yet to you that’s a success.
Compared to the free rein we now have under the Big Dog strategy that gets your nipples so hard? Where the entire region fears us and we have the forces to do whatever we want and they can’t stop us?
That conclusion would seem to be inescapable.
Exactly my point, my friend. I don’t blame you for not yet coming to such a realization about our little turdmonger acquaintance, but it’s precisely why so many of us do have a problem with the pointy headed little dimwit. It’s not just his pugnacious devotion to poorly considered and dangerous policies (and I’m not talking about conservatism here; I respect conservative political philosophy, but I don’t think Barry Goldwater would even recognize the Scylla brand of conservatism), it’s also, and probably mostly because of the rank dishonesty with which he approaches these arguments. Maybe you think it’s all a product of (possibly inbred) stupidity, that he just doesn’t realize he’s mischaracterized your arguments or missed the point or followed an irrelevant line of argument which obscures the real issues… Think again. He’s not actually stupid, any more than George W. Bush is stupid. He’s just a liar. I call him dimwitted because the ideas he cheerleads for are stupid. And evil. (See a pattern forming here?)
But I’ve spent far too much energy over the past four and a half years out-arguing him. It’s useless, because he takes that consideration and uses it as validation. He’ll claim that none of his detractors -not me, not elucidator, not minty green, and sometime in the near future probably not big Svin either- have ever responded to his pearl-like and reasonable arguments in kind. I could point you to long and wide ranging threads where all of us I just mentioned did just that… but you already know he’s lying about it. He’ll start calling you an anonymous internet coward and a liar along with the rest of us if you ever once call his dishonesty what it is.
But let me waste no more time on this little amateur turdmonger. His usefulness is only to illustrate the methodologies used by the power brokers in the new Turd Economy. The larger point here is this: Humanity’s favorite fallacy is the argumentum ad populum. All that is required for monstrous policies to gain sway in a state is that they speak to basic human ideas of right and wrong or of survival, that they portray the choices as starkly black & white moral decisions, that the powerful and prominent describe the choices in uniform language, and that close examination of the promoted choices and their alternatives is obscured, suppressed or invalidated.
What you’ve been doing, my Sweden dwelling friend, is closely examining the choices, and you’ve been doing it admirably. I’m not advising you to stop doing it. Nor am I advising you to start name-calling in lieu of argument. What I want to do is to call to your attention the same thing that Lakoff is saying. “We”, by which I mean those who argue with abominable politics through devotion to liberal, progressive, libertarian or actual conservative ideals, give half the game away from the start when we accept the terms of argument offered to us. You wouldn’t accept “How should we deal with liberal leaning Americans living in Sweden and other terrorists?” as a valid frame of argument, but that’s the sort of argument liberals (and also Democrats) have politely accepted in this country over the past decade. We accepted “war on terror” as a nonrhetorical, actual bona fide shootin’ war and thus made the invasion of Iraq seem reasonable to the clueless. We accepted “tax relief” as an actual compelling need felt by the middle class and thus enabled the rank give-aways to the least needy among us. We’re letting them use “Social Security reform” as an unchallenged frame for the argument to destroy SS.
Worse than that, we let mewling little weasels characterize us in the most distasteful and dishonest terms and yet feel constrained by our own inclusive philosophy from calling the stupid, the sick or the evil by their rightful names. And we respond to lies with selective truths, but hardly ever with full disclosure and almost never with the scorn such lies deserve.
My point is that by not rebuking dishonesty, by hiding our disgust for plutocratic and imperialist dogma, by acting apologetic of our own core values, we feed the perception the plutocrats and imperialists most want fed: that their frames are the natural and reasonable frames, and that they stand up to all criticism. And that the occasional charges against them are “shrill”.
Liberals will never speak with one voice. It’s just not consistent with our philosophy. But we damn sure better learn to speak truth --all the truth, about our opponents as well as ourselves-- or we can kiss the idea of America goodbye.
And yes, things are that bad.
Elvis:
Why the sudden interest in my nipples?
Xenophon:
Thank you. Thank you. Here, I’ve brought you forth as an example of a person who instead of engaging ideas simply insults his opponent. I have put forth a proof that this is evidence of stupidity, cowardice, and the failure of ideas in an opponent.
You have come through with flying colors.
Your behavior is proof of stupidity, cowardice, and an inability to rebut a superior argument.
In the final analysis, as your last post demonstrates in its paranoid hyperbolous zeal, there is another possibility for your feelings.
That possibility is that the fault lies with you, that you are so far out there in your hatred for the opposition that your failure to find common ground for discourse means you’ve abandoned consensus reality for a satisfying “black and white, cowboys and Indians worldview” in which all that is evil lies with the opposition and all that is good lies with your supporters.
Indulging or embracing such a worldview comes with it the price of irrelevance.
Your failure to reason with me is the failure of your reason.
If you believe what you say, you have my pity. If you are merely indulging yourself and venting, you have my contempt for your cowardly dishonesty.
Yes. It was. It depended on luck to avert disaster.
We’re not taking the containment approach, if you’ve noticed. Didn’t work. Korea is still there. Terrorism is still there. The World Trade Centers aren’t. We’ve already had one avalanche, now we’re clearing the mountain.
Scylla:
I’ll be back with more observations in a minute, but just let me say quickly that, until you’ve volunteered for combat duty in Iraq or Afghanistan, you have no right whatsoever to employ the pronoun “we” in the sentences above.
Scylla:
First off, let me clarify something. When I wrote ”Argue from a conservative point of view if you wish, but please stop making shit up to support your argument. Because that’s what really pisses me off,” in my previous post, above, I wasn’t speaking specifically of you. I meant ”you” in the general sense, as in, ”You folks on the right.” While you and I have our differences, I don’t think that you are anywhere near as disingenuous on that point as many other posters, which is why I continue to address you with respect.
That doesn’t mean your perfect, though:
To my mind, in this case, the fact that Chalabi was known as a con-artist and shyster years before the Bush and the neo-cons tapped him to be titular head of Iraq. It’s hard to justify the relationship Bush had to Chalabi prior to the discovery that he (Chalabi) was passing state secrets to the Iranians. You write:
Which is undoubtedly true, but ignores the simple fact that in this instance, with Chalabi, the administration was warned well in advance. Your response has a kind of prima facie reasonableness to it, but then Nightime replies:
It’s really very simple. It’s a relief to see someone express in a straightforward manner, with a simplicity I don’t master, exactly what happened and why it’s a problem.
Now, before Chalabi got burned, the inestimable Simon X started a long thread about him, which demonstrated clearly what a lying sack o shit Chalabi really was. This was well-known before the administration decided to employ him, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, as a source of information on Iraq. So – Simon’s a conservative, but he didn’t see a need to ”fudge the facts” in order to support his conservative ideas. Which only goes to show that conservatives can be members of the reality-based community if they so wish.
We can also employ your kitchen metaphor, if you so wish. We could compare Iraq to a bad kitchen, and Chalabi to the plumber you hired to fix it. You were warned, repeatedly and clearly, by many neighbours who knew through previous experience that Chalabi was a bad plumber and a crook to boot, but you chose to ignore their warnings. They even had evidence, in the form of previous work he had done, which unequivocally demonstrated his incompetence. You dismissed it.
Now we’ve paid Chalabi thousands and thousands of dollars to fix our kitchen, and it’s in worse shape than it was before. And you’re going to tell me that the responsibility for hiring this goon, over the warnings of those who knew him well, somehow doesn’t reside with you, or was nothing other than a simple ”mistake,” for which you should not be held accountable?
This is nonsense. I’m not in the military, nor have I volunteered for combat duty. (I’m probably too old for the latter, anyway.)
Because of this (according to you), 9/11 was not an attack on me, or any other American similarly situated, and accordingly, we are not entitled to our belief that we suffered at attack (Scylla’s avalanche) on that day. Similarly, even though our elected government and military reacted to an attack on us and other foreign threats by taking action (military, diplomatic and otherwise) to address these threats, using diplomats, military personnel, arms, foreign subsidies and other resouces, all paid for by our tax dollars, you contend that these are not our acts.
Sorry. Disagree. It’s our government, our military, our state department, and our treasury. We’re taking this actions.
Too much wriggle room. Tactical error. Chalabi was not merely the favorite, he was the designated successor. Need we remind of Chalabi’s honored position at the State of the Unon Address? His glowing, porcine visage as he was stroked and flattered by the President of the United States? How he was airlifted into Iraq by the Pentagram with several hundred of his, ahem, “bodyguards”?
What other possible message could be recieved by our prospective liberatees, the targets of our armed munificence? Except that we were either utterly and hopelessly unhampered by clues, or we knew what we were doing and were determined to do it anyway? Meet the new boss, not so bad as the old boss, don’t like it? Meet the new boss.
Someone point out to me the public mea fuckup the Admin. put out over this totally blatant pooch-screwing. And yet The Leader, asked about what mistakes he might cop to, can’t come up with a thing. Nope. Nothin’.
And they wonder why so few have any confidence in their ability. They seem to be fossilized into the attitude that refusing to admit a mistake is the same as not making one. Ain’t so.
Quite so. And so much the worse. A rare example of mistatement on the part of the astute quasi-Swede.
Bullshit. Scylla is most definitely “not clearing the mountain.”
He is letting other people “clear the mountain” for him and deferring the payment for said clearing to his daughter, and my nephew, among others.
Whether you feel that you, personally, suffered from the 9/11 attacks is a different matter. I felt like I had a spear rammed through my chest for a couple of days afterwards, and imagine it was 10 times worse for anyone actually there, not to speak of those who lost loved ones. But I don’t go around beating my chest claiming to “clear the mountain” two years later, when I have in fact not done anything of a practical nature in TWAT.
Nor do I hold you, elucidator, personally responsible for the idiocies pursued by the current US government – especially given your opposition to those policies.
You’re not out “clearing the mountain,” are you?
I find it exhausting enough arguing with piles of admanant rock.
adamant, that is.
This is exactly the point I have been making about the blowjob impeachment. The right would LOOOOVE to rewrite history to have it become a matter of serious and high-minded statesmen dealing responsibly with a serious legal matter. But if you were around during that time, you know it was a blowjobbin’, titty-lickin’ , cum-stained circus of sexual hysteria, mostly whipped up by Pubbies but also by a few weaselly Dems (I’m lookin’ at YOU, Joe Lieberman!) When liberals and Democrats allow Pubbies and Pubbie apologists to characterize it as a matter of perjury, you’re letting them rehabilitate their image.
In the same way, during the runup to the last election, we should have described the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth as a bunch of proven liars at every opportunity – their names should never have been mentioned without also mentioning that they were proven liars. Long after the Swift Boat Liars’ lies had been thoroughly debunked, I repeatedly heard members of the media parroting their accusations as if there was something to them. And I’m not talking about bastions of falsehood like Fox News, I’m talking about NPR and the major news stations. Baldly presenting the Swift Boat Liars’ claims without pointing out that they were proven lies gave them an air of legitimacy that they didn’t possess and didn’t deserve.
There was a more subtle bit of frame-shifting involved here, too. By challenging Kerry’s record in Vietnam, even with the most bald-faced of lies, Rove and his people were able to create the impression that the Presidential race was between two guys with questionable service records, creating a rough equivalence between Kerry and Bush, even though the real truth was that Kerry unquestionably served in combat in Vietnam, and Bush unquestionably evaded combat by “serving” in the Air National Guard, and very likely failed to even fulfill his duties to the Guard.
When you let the Pubbies frame the debate, you lose. Even though the Swift Boat Liars were quickly debunked, they still managed to do their damage to Kerry, just by creating that false equivalence between Bush and Kerry.
Exactly. Ann Coulter calls Democrats treasonous for challenging Republican ideas, while I haven’t seen any of the folks who participated in the Republican theft of the 2000 election called traitors even though their clear goal was to subvert democracy for their partisan purposes.
Ever since the Pubbies succeeded in stealing the Presidency, they’ve felt invulnerable, and the last election has only contributed to that feeling. Things are that bad, and they’re gonna get worse until the Dems learn to fight fire with fire, or at least with something that works.
Yes. We are. Your argument is silly. (The problem here may, at its heart, just be a language usage issue. I believe you are a Swede, so if English is not your first language, that may explain something. Your English appears to be perfect, though, so maybe not.)
It is perfectly proper for a citizen of a nation with an elected government to use “we”, “us” or “our” as shorthand pronouns when describing the actions of that elected goverment. “We entered WWII in 1941”; “Our Air Force bombed the ball bearing plant supplying the German war machine”; and Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor" are all proper (albeit slightly informal) usages.
In Scylla’s metaphor, 9/11 (and, to a lesser degree, similar foreign threats) are the avalanche. The mountain is/are the sources of the 9/11 and other attacks, actual or threatened.
Except for some loons elsewhere, everyone agrees that Al Qaida organized the attack on 9/11 and planned others, and that AQ had its main base in Afghanistan at that time. We (the United States), with the much appreciated help of many allies, have largely destroyed AQ’s operations in Afghanistan. Other operations continue elsewhere, some against AQ, and some against other threats. Many have been successful. A few have failed. We do not yet know the results of others. But we’ve had made some progess. Thus, we are clearing the mountain. We. Us. That includes Scylla, me, and even Elucidator.
It succeeded for ten full years, with no US or other allied casualties. You can dismiss that as luck if you wish to continue to have your connection with reality questioned, or you can acknowledge that the strategy was effective and well-executed by the forces assigned to do it, those you demean as simply “lucky”. Your choice.
Korea was contained until Bush decided not to bother. So was Al Qaeda, if you’ve noticed. Terrorism has always been and will always be with us, and can only be contained. The goal of containment is not to eliminate a problem, but to contain it. It was, in fact, working, and not by “luck”. Got it? As for “clearing the mountain”, well, as we say around here, how’s that working out for ya so far?
You might try a reply with a *serious * assessment about the status of your cherished Big Dog strategy, btw - if you want to start to be taken seriously, that is. If you want to be thought to be “refuting” a damn thing here, you do have to use facts, ya know. This would be a good time to start.
You’re wrong.
and
Source: http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2002&m=October&x=20021018155427mkellerh@pd.state.gov0.9141504&t=xarchives/xarchitem.html
What did you say about facts, again?
I gave the short answer. The long one would be that the strategy was working imperfectly despite the energetic efforts of the Bush 1 and Clinton administrations. As Ridge likes to point out, we have to be perfect, they only have to succeed once. Containment wasn’t perfect, but it worked better than anything else could have.
And what’s the alternative you propose? This “mountain clearing” has resulted in the Bali bombing, the Madrid bombings, the new AQ recruiting ground in Iraq where over 1000 of our people have died and many more have been maimed. More people either hate us or fear our irrationality or both than ever before, and are busy saying “Nice doggie” while looking for rocks. The “government” we propose to leave behind in Irarq after some sham elections looks like it will be every bit like the one we overthrew. In Afghanistan, the warlords are back in control over the entire country outside Kabul, and the Taliban is regrouping. Osama is nowhere to be seen, and Bush is doing exactly jack shit about getting him.
That’s an improvement? Yes, by all means let us look at the facts. Do tell us more.
There are some problems with the above, Random. Not making any accusations, mind you, just pointing out a few things.
First off, to this day we have’t any idea who, what, or where “Al Queda” is. Except we are advised that we have neutralized over 75% of their “top leadership”, or some such rot. Nobody seems to question this, no one seems to elicit any response. Do we have the AlQ membership rolls, and “X” them off one at a time? I think not. I have been offered nothing to date to instill any confidence that our gov. has any idea what the hell they’re talking about. And much good reason, given recent events, to harbor suspicion.
Pretty clearly, this 75% figure comes under the heading of what is referred to in technical terms as “pulling numbers out of your ass”.
Now then, when this self same group of chucklewits offers such as the above, with a straight face and apparent sincerity, I don’t doubt their earnest intent. What I doubt is that they have a clue. For all we know, the group known as AlQ may have dissolved into a thousand different fragments, setting up shop under a thousand different identities, and we wouldn’t have the least notion. Anything that happens, we simply say “AlQ” as though we have some effective intelligence.
Any reason to believe this? Any at all? So, yes, all of the aforementioned incidents could be attributed to AlQ. They might, as well, be attributed to the Phantom of the Opera, for all the real difference it makes.