Nevermind, anyway. We're both wrong. The Democratic Underground has the scoop: the CIA killed Nick Berg.Originally Posted by Justin '77
Is that all he is to you?
- Join Date
- Dec 2001
- Posts
- 201
Nevermind, anyway. We're both wrong. The Democratic Underground has the scoop: the CIA killed Nick Berg.Is that all he is to you?
Nevermind, anyway. We're both wrong. The Democratic Underground has the scoop: the CIA killed Nick Berg.Is that all he is to you?
Actually, the subject at hand was arguably "keeping WMD out of the hands of non-rational actors".
As N. Korea periodically asserts that they will sell WMD to whomever and his brother, (and then denies it, waits a month, and starts the cycle again) I think the picture qualifies.
Actually, the subject at hand was arguably "keeping WMD out of the hands of non-rational actors".
As N. Korea periodically asserts that they will sell WMD to whomever and his brother, (and then denies it, waits a month, and starts the cycle again) I think the picture qualifies.
That's what Dick Clarke says now. Since he was saying much the opposite a couple of years ago, and in the late 1990's was harping about the Y2K problem, I need a little more than his word to believe this spin.
That's what Dick Clarke says now. Since he was saying much the opposite a couple of years ago, and in the late 1990's was harping about the Y2K problem, I need a little more than his word to believe this spin.
Kevlar and Parsimony
You're going to have to do better than that. We are fighting this war with a twentieth-century antiquity. We don't understand our enemy. We don't even understand ourselves. You can't convince me that the Bush Admin. really understands what is going on. Neither does Kerry.Antique war methods are not being used, at least, not by the U.S....
Antiquity is the right word here. Didn't men of the Roman Legion have to purschase their own fighting equipment? The fact that men and women of our National Guard have to puchase their own Kevlar flak jackets strikes me as a national embarrassment, if not a throwback to ancient times.
I'm listening to a Seattle radio talk show right now--Dori Monson--who says nukemgood. Is that what you say, too? It worked for WWII. Why not Iraq?
Honestly, we are hopelessly lost in our own self-righteousness, and we cannot win this war by any old methods of the past. Tell me something new, msm, something that will actually work to bring home our best and our brightest.
--Ernest Croakmore
Kevlar and Parsimony
You're going to have to do better than that. We are fighting this war with a twentieth-century antiquity. We don't understand our enemy. We don't even understand ourselves. You can't convince me that the Bush Admin. really understands what is going on. Neither does Kerry.Antique war methods are not being used, at least, not by the U.S....
Antiquity is the right word here. Didn't men of the Roman Legion have to purschase their own fighting equipment? The fact that men and women of our National Guard have to puchase their own Kevlar flak jackets strikes me as a national embarrassment, if not a throwback to ancient times.
I'm listening to a Seattle radio talk show right now--Dori Monson--who says nukemgood. Is that what you say, too? It worked for WWII. Why not Iraq?
Honestly, we are hopelessly lost in our own self-righteousness, and we cannot win this war by any old methods of the past. Tell me something new, msm, something that will actually work to bring home our best and our brightest.
--Ernest Croakmore
This has become the accepted gospel among the liberal elites. I'm no longer inclined to disabuse them of their story at all, because I think the majority of Americans pretty much know the real truth. And because of that, those like Alexander are becoming more and more marginalized like the leftover Roosevelt haters in the early sixties. Come late November the obvious will have the effect of a bad liberal hangover. But they'll get over it and probably turn even more shrill as the last vestiges of political power slip through their fingers.
Then what? Who knows, but their brand of liberalism, whatever it has become, is finished that's for sure. RIP. 8)
This has become the accepted gospel among the liberal elites. I'm no longer inclined to disabuse them of their story at all, because I think the majority of Americans pretty much know the real truth. And because of that, those like Alexander are becoming more and more marginalized like the leftover Roosevelt haters in the early sixties. Come late November the obvious will have the effect of a bad liberal hangover. But they'll get over it and probably turn even more shrill as the last vestiges of political power slip through their fingers.
Then what? Who knows, but their brand of liberalism, whatever it has become, is finished that's for sure. RIP. 8)
Re: Kevlar and Parsimony
Here's a new idea, Croakman. First we'll coax the terrorists out of their lairs with a trail of delicious candy. Then, once their bellies are full and they're all sleepy and happy, we'll calmly explain that we don't approve of what they've been doing and it's not very nice and we wish they'd stop. And they'll be like, "Whoa, we never thought of it that way. You guys are our friends! We like you!" And then everybody will hug and cry, and then get a little embarrassed about crying, and then make some jokes to cover up being embarrassed. And then a beautiful rainbow will appear, and a shy unicorn will walk down it, and Osama Bin Laden will rise from the grave and ride the unicorn to the North Pole, and he'll help Santa make wonderful toys for all the good little girls and boys, and there'll be hot chocolate, and, and, and, and nobody will ever ever die again for any reason ever. THE END
Sorry, folks. I shamelessly ripped this off from here, with minor editing.
Re: Kevlar and Parsimony
Here's a new idea, Croakman. First we'll coax the terrorists out of their lairs with a trail of delicious candy. Then, once their bellies are full and they're all sleepy and happy, we'll calmly explain that we don't approve of what they've been doing and it's not very nice and we wish they'd stop. And they'll be like, "Whoa, we never thought of it that way. You guys are our friends! We like you!" And then everybody will hug and cry, and then get a little embarrassed about crying, and then make some jokes to cover up being embarrassed. And then a beautiful rainbow will appear, and a shy unicorn will walk down it, and Osama Bin Laden will rise from the grave and ride the unicorn to the North Pole, and he'll help Santa make wonderful toys for all the good little girls and boys, and there'll be hot chocolate, and, and, and, and nobody will ever ever die again for any reason ever. THE END
Sorry, folks. I shamelessly ripped this off from here, with minor editing.
Well, Bush says this too. He acknowledges that they weren't engaged on al Qaeda prior to 911. Put yourself in his shoes. Until 911, how much had al Qaeda actually done against the US when compared to what the Iranians did in the eighties? Wouldn't you be a little suspicious when your predecessor tells you that this one guy in Afghanistan and his organization is the biggest threat to the US?That's what Dick Clarke says now. Since he was saying much the opposite a couple of years ago, and in the late 1990's was harping about the Y2K problem, I need a little more than his word to believe this spin.
Woodward's and O'Neill's books also support the idea that Iraq was numero uno foreign policy issue and terrorism was not.
Well, Bush says this too. He acknowledges that they weren't engaged on al Qaeda prior to 911. Put yourself in his shoes. Until 911, how much had al Qaeda actually done against the US when compared to what the Iranians did in the eighties? Wouldn't you be a little suspicious when your predecessor tells you that this one guy in Afghanistan and his organization is the biggest threat to the US?That's what Dick Clarke says now. Since he was saying much the opposite a couple of years ago, and in the late 1990's was harping about the Y2K problem, I need a little more than his word to believe this spin.
Woodward's and O'Neill's books also support the idea that Iraq was numero uno foreign policy issue and terrorism was not.
US hawks in the early 1950's urged destroying the USSR with nukes while we still can. Were they non-rational actors? Eisenhower hinted that he might listen to the hawks, and was thus able to secure peace in Korea. Was he a non-rational actor?
US hawks in the early 1950's urged destroying the USSR with nukes while we still can. Were they non-rational actors? Eisenhower hinted that he might listen to the hawks, and was thus able to secure peace in Korea. Was he a non-rational actor?
Democratic societies employ open debate in a human attempt to arrive at the wisest course of action.US hawks in the early 1950's urged destroying the USSR with nukes while we still can. Were they non-rational actors? Eisenhower hinted that he might listen to the hawks, and was thus able to secure peace in Korea. Was he a non-rational actor?
The fact that some individuals taking part in said debates may be unwise or irrational does not preclude the tendency of democratic societies to outperform nondemocratic societies in arriving at wiser and more rational policies.
Furthermore, any nation-state has a much greater incentive to behave rationally vis-a-vis WMD use than a secretive terrorist religious cult, for reasons almost too obvious to state: (1) the terrorists might think that they will avoid retribution, and (2) being fanatics, they might not care anyway.
You know all this as well as I do, of course. So why do you submit such irrelevant arguments? Clearly, whatever Ike or any hawks said, the U.S. has proven more rational vis-a-vis WMD use than we should expect Al Qaeda to be. The proof of this lies not in the minor fact that WMD emerged during a great world-wide war, but in U.S. actions ever since that war ended.
The challenge of our generation (world-wide) is to establish an international regime in which only rational great powers posess WMD.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, it began a brief decade during which the number of nuclear weapons worldwide actually decreased for the first time since 1945. We can get there again, but right now, proliferation is waxing and control waning, and Islamicist philosophy is a big factor in why this is.
Democratic societies employ open debate in a human attempt to arrive at the wisest course of action.US hawks in the early 1950's urged destroying the USSR with nukes while we still can. Were they non-rational actors? Eisenhower hinted that he might listen to the hawks, and was thus able to secure peace in Korea. Was he a non-rational actor?
The fact that some individuals taking part in said debates may be unwise or irrational does not preclude the tendency of democratic societies to outperform nondemocratic societies in arriving at wiser and more rational policies.
Furthermore, any nation-state has a much greater incentive to behave rationally vis-a-vis WMD use than a secretive terrorist religious cult, for reasons almost too obvious to state: (1) the terrorists might think that they will avoid retribution, and (2) being fanatics, they might not care anyway.
You know all this as well as I do, of course. So why do you submit such irrelevant arguments? Clearly, whatever Ike or any hawks said, the U.S. has proven more rational vis-a-vis WMD use than we should expect Al Qaeda to be. The proof of this lies not in the minor fact that WMD emerged during a great world-wide war, but in U.S. actions ever since that war ended.
The challenge of our generation (world-wide) is to establish an international regime in which only rational great powers posess WMD.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, it began a brief decade during which the number of nuclear weapons worldwide actually decreased for the first time since 1945. We can get there again, but right now, proliferation is waxing and control waning, and Islamicist philosophy is a big factor in why this is.
Good enough, but there are a couple of points that need to be made.The challenge of our generation (world-wide) is to establish an international regime in which only rational great powers posess WMD.
First, if you want to establish an international regime, it cannot be done on a basis of uncompromising nationalism.
Second, it is a fact I believe not open to serious dispute that no terrorist groups currently possess any WMD, or if they do, then they acquired them very, very recently. Such weapons, once acquired, will be used, as that Japanese terrorist group whose identity escapes my memory used them in the subways.
The best evidence that al-Qaeda has no WMD -- well, no chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons; I guess hijacked airplanes can be used as WMD -- is that we have not been attacked with them.
Third, it is also a fact I believe should not be (but unfortunately is) open to serious dispute that the real threat of terrorists acquiring WMD does not come from states deliberately giving them such weapons. Independent terrorist groups are simply not reliable, and states are, by nature, paranoid and suspicious. As I said earlier, Saddam once upon a time certainly had chemical weapons, and he never gave them to his terrorist allies. Why not? Because once they left his hands, he could not control how they would be used.
Much has been made of North Korea's repeated threats to sell nuclear technology to anyone willing to pay for it, and repeated backing down from this threat. If North Korea was really serious about selling that technology they would already have done so, and they would have done it quietly, not screamed about it to the world. What could be more obvious than that NK is trying to scare the great powers into providing them with material assistance?
So what is the real threat?
Well, first off, as I said earlier, there are countries with WMD whose security arrangements are less than adequate. That needs to be addressed.
Secondly, there is the danger of terrorist groups developing the technology themselves. Now, that's not going to happen with nuclear technology, which is far too complicated and expensive, but there are some very cheap and easy chemical weapons that could be made. This is a danger proportionate to the size of terrorist movements themselves.
Third, there is the reason why terrorist groups exist in the first place. Why are people willing to risk, or even sacrifice, their lives to bring destruction to others? Obviously because they have a serious grievance. Are all such grievances legitimate? No, but where there are no legitimate grievances terrorism will be weaker than where there are some.
This is the danger of thinking about radical Islam as if we were confronted by implacable alien menaces that cannot be understood. This is the danger in saying things like "they hate us for our freedom, for who we are." This makes the problem unsolvable (and I strongly suspect, for Mr. Bush, that was the point -- an unsolvable problem provides a perpetual pretext for war).
Our freedom is obviously a problem for radical Muslim theology, but how prevalent would such beliefs be if they were not driven by material and social injustice? In the heydey of Islamic civilization, when the Muslim world was advanced and prosperous while Europeans languished in semi-barbarism, Islam was far more moderate and reasonable, and provided a haven of tolerance for Jews and a climate in which science advanced.
Addressing the material and social injustices that put wind in the sails of radical Islam is not a substitute for strong-willed international police efforts to defend against, and root out, terrorist groups themselves. But vice-versa is also true. Military and police efforts are damage control. They help reduce the scale of the problem and minimize the damage, but they are not a solution. The solution lies elsewhere.
Good enough, but there are a couple of points that need to be made.The challenge of our generation (world-wide) is to establish an international regime in which only rational great powers posess WMD.
First, if you want to establish an international regime, it cannot be done on a basis of uncompromising nationalism.
Second, it is a fact I believe not open to serious dispute that no terrorist groups currently possess any WMD, or if they do, then they acquired them very, very recently. Such weapons, once acquired, will be used, as that Japanese terrorist group whose identity escapes my memory used them in the subways.
The best evidence that al-Qaeda has no WMD -- well, no chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons; I guess hijacked airplanes can be used as WMD -- is that we have not been attacked with them.
Third, it is also a fact I believe should not be (but unfortunately is) open to serious dispute that the real threat of terrorists acquiring WMD does not come from states deliberately giving them such weapons. Independent terrorist groups are simply not reliable, and states are, by nature, paranoid and suspicious. As I said earlier, Saddam once upon a time certainly had chemical weapons, and he never gave them to his terrorist allies. Why not? Because once they left his hands, he could not control how they would be used.
Much has been made of North Korea's repeated threats to sell nuclear technology to anyone willing to pay for it, and repeated backing down from this threat. If North Korea was really serious about selling that technology they would already have done so, and they would have done it quietly, not screamed about it to the world. What could be more obvious than that NK is trying to scare the great powers into providing them with material assistance?
So what is the real threat?
Well, first off, as I said earlier, there are countries with WMD whose security arrangements are less than adequate. That needs to be addressed.
Secondly, there is the danger of terrorist groups developing the technology themselves. Now, that's not going to happen with nuclear technology, which is far too complicated and expensive, but there are some very cheap and easy chemical weapons that could be made. This is a danger proportionate to the size of terrorist movements themselves.
Third, there is the reason why terrorist groups exist in the first place. Why are people willing to risk, or even sacrifice, their lives to bring destruction to others? Obviously because they have a serious grievance. Are all such grievances legitimate? No, but where there are no legitimate grievances terrorism will be weaker than where there are some.
This is the danger of thinking about radical Islam as if we were confronted by implacable alien menaces that cannot be understood. This is the danger in saying things like "they hate us for our freedom, for who we are." This makes the problem unsolvable (and I strongly suspect, for Mr. Bush, that was the point -- an unsolvable problem provides a perpetual pretext for war).
Our freedom is obviously a problem for radical Muslim theology, but how prevalent would such beliefs be if they were not driven by material and social injustice? In the heydey of Islamic civilization, when the Muslim world was advanced and prosperous while Europeans languished in semi-barbarism, Islam was far more moderate and reasonable, and provided a haven of tolerance for Jews and a climate in which science advanced.
Addressing the material and social injustices that put wind in the sails of radical Islam is not a substitute for strong-willed international police efforts to defend against, and root out, terrorist groups themselves. But vice-versa is also true. Military and police efforts are damage control. They help reduce the scale of the problem and minimize the damage, but they are not a solution. The solution lies elsewhere.
Nor can it be done on the basis of placing trust in fraudulent, corrupt, flawed, and failed institutions such as the U.N.
Nor can it be done on the basis of placing trust in fraudulent, corrupt, flawed, and failed institutions such as the U.N.
True. So where's a third course of action different from both the Bush approach (uncompromising, short-sighted nationalism) and a blind devotion to the U.N.?Nor can it be done on the basis of placing trust in fraudulent, corrupt, flawed, and failed institutions such as the U.N.
I've already suggested one or two on other threads, but let's see what you suggest.
True. So where's a third course of action different from both the Bush approach (uncompromising, short-sighted nationalism) and a blind devotion to the U.N.?Nor can it be done on the basis of placing trust in fraudulent, corrupt, flawed, and failed institutions such as the U.N.
I've already suggested one or two on other threads, but let's see what you suggest.
Brian: these two paragraphs of yours are nearly in contradiction:
First, you accept that not all grievances are legitimate.
One such illegitimate grievance Islamicists refer to is our essential non-Islamic nature, including our freedoms. As has been pointed out quite well by knowledgable observers such as Rushdie, Islam is in crisis due to modernism. (One need only image the medieval Catholic Church confronted with the modern West to understand.) Some within Islam see the solution to be eliminating modernism, including our freedoms.
Your second paragraph claims there is a danger in acknowledging these facts. When is it dangerous to acknowledge the truth? Only where other truths are not also acknowledged, which is not the case with Mr. Bush, despite your insinuations.
The pretense that the problem is unsolvable is one of the tools of the terrorists. They spread the myth that they are ghost-like super beings, who cannot be found and killed, whose supplies cannot be cut off, etc. The Left in the West also frequently spreads this myth.
This myth has never been spread by Bush. Much the opposite.
Do you deny the existance of any irrational people? Is Charles Manson rational?
