Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Who says? Does it occur to you that the mainstream choices may all be wrong? When the decision is between neglect and indiscriminately kill, there is a serious problem that cuts deeper into the fabric of American society than any terrorist attack. =/

The Bush administration has managed to do both -- spectacularly. That's why they suck.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

..

The problem I have with the Afghanistan incursion is the total lack of seriousness we applied to it. If Iraq wasn't in queue, we could have easily bombed the al Qaeda strongholds, sent in adequate forces to secure the area, and gotten bin Laden and the rest of the al Qaeda senior leadership, dead or alive. If the Taliban had stood aside, we could have left them in place, as far as I'm concerned. That focused task could have been accomplished in 90 to 180 days.

Instead, just like Iraq, we decided to 'reform' the country. Does that qualify as stupid? Yes. Does that make the justification for the incursion null and void. No. The bad part was the hidden agenda of the neo-con cabal, that just had to have an American enclave as the most important end result when getting the bad guys was the only necessary thing. Overreaching merely guaranteed outright failure. Stupid^2.

Simply and clearly an excellent analysis!

Even Justin '77 advocated doing something about Osama; it would have been interesting to see if and how it would have worked.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

OK, then I guess we're back to your solution which is ... do nothing. Doing nothing is how we got into the financial mess we currently have, and doing nothing when attacked at the level of the 9/11 attacks on the WTC and Pentagon could be expected to yield similar results.

There are times when the choices are between bad and worse, like it or not.

Who says? Does it occur to you that the mainstream choices may all be wrong? When the decision is between neglect and indiscriminately kill, there is a serious problem that cuts deeper into the fabric of American society than any terrorist attack.

H-m-m-m. You seem to like the strawman thing, too, since you only select the two ultimate options to compare. That is hogwash!

If we are speaking about our response to 9/11, the choices are many, but only a limited few are both practical (i.e. doable in the real world) and viable (i.e. net productive). Random killing of Afghanis was and still is doable, but to what end? Even setting aside the moral issues, it creates more trouble than it solves. It's not viable. A similar argument can be made for benign neglect. Both options create negatives that far outweigh their benefits, real or perceived. Perhaps, that should be hint that your choices are bogus, but let's review them anyway.

Since the option you seem to advocate is option #2, how would you offset the negatives? Failing to respond to an atrocity of that magnitude guarantees confrontation from anyone that feels the need to poke the hegemon in the eye, and leaves the perpetrators free to plan and execute another atrocity. We can feel high-minded and pure, but the problem will only grow worse. By the time 9/11 occurred, al Qaeda had already engaged in similar activities on several occasions, so their continued attempts must be assumed.

The other option is the immoral, "Kill them all and let God sort them out", that's so popular with armchair warriors, but doesn't even accomplish the intended goal of producing a 'win'. Thankfully, you find that as abhorrent as I do.

All other responses lie in the center ground somewhere. All have issues. I picked an option that seemed to me a 'best' overall solution, though 'best' does not imply 'good'. In this case, 'best' is 'least bad'. Feel free to disagree, and supply an option of your own.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Even Justin '77 advocated doing something about Osama; it would have been interesting to see if and how it would have worked.

Wow, that Justin proposal was pretty darn good. I think it would have resulted in not only Osama's head but a really gripping reality show!

I wonder if he's got similar solutions to our other several ills. If so, maybe we can start a write-in campaign for him as the next President! I'm serious!

Originally Posted by playwrite

Wow, that Justin proposal was pretty darn good. I think it would have resulted in not only Osama's head but a really gripping reality show!

LOL, and ratings would be through the roof!

Originally Posted by The Rani

Why not just vote for Ron Paul? He's already running.

He's too short.

No, just kidding. He is too wacky for me.

I may have disagreed with Justin, here and there, but I've never seen him as wacky.
Besides, maybe he could get a Putin endorsement - that seems to make one a sure thing.

Wired magazine has some really fascinating articles, from very different angles, on our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The first blames our problems over there on the geeks which just happen to be the primary audience of Wired.

How Technology Almost Lost the War: In Iraq, the Critical Networks Are Social — Not Electronic

http://www.wired.com/politics/securi...?currentPage=1

Actually, it’s about our reliance on Net-Centric warfare – the usual little bit of background and history, how it’s applied and how it worked great for the initial invasions but not the occupancy. However, what’s really interesting is the comparison to the “social networking” that is providing results particularly the success of one psyops kid (Semo?) from Cleveland in helping to turn Fallujah around. The piece also goes on and gives some hints to the potential future of better marrying the technologic and the social networking components into a much more effective military.

Much insight throughout, but I found this particularly telling –

"We got trapped into thinking that killing/destruction mechanisms of the highest technical quality could replace true human understanding. The vote is in, and we were wrong," says Steve Fondacaro, a cleft-chinned, chipped-toothed former Special Forces operator who now heads the HTT program. "We had been trying to take the test without doing the course work. That never works in school, and it hasn't worked any better in war."

{side note -- Hey, even Bush is coming around to the notion that, at least for some situations, maybe talking can work at least as good as killing. It’s just that his Annapolis meeting seems way too late.}

A second Wired article takes this in another direction of examining the value conflicts of academicians caught up ($400 grand per yr salary!) in the military’s efforts to “understand” the population in the area that it is occupying –

http://www.wired.com/politics/securi.../human_terrain

Army Social Scientists Calm Afghanistan, Make Enemies at Home

Of particular interest is the role of anthropology which due to some similar historic involvement, has been labeled the, "child of imperialism." Wired covers how the Board of the Anthropologist Association has officially blasted their members involvement –

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/1...pology-as.html

The executive board of the American Anthropology Association (AAA) has officially expressed "its disapproval of the [Human Terrain System] HTS program," a military effort that embeds social scientists in the military. The decision to condemn HTS cannot stop academics from signing on, but it will undoubtedly make it harder for the military to recruit qualified anthropologists to the program, and likely will escalate an already heated war of words between supporters and critics of the work.

The human elements of all this could provide some really juicy stuff for my work! I hope you find it as fascinating!

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. You seem to like the strawman thing, too, since you only select the two ultimate options to compare. That is hogwash!

I don't think it is as nuanced as you seem to indicate. Quite obviously, the goal isn't kill 'em all, but its a natural consequence that lots of innocent civilians will die in war.

If we are speaking about our response to 9/11, the choices are many, but only a limited few are both practical (i.e. doable in the real world) and viable (i.e. net productive). Random killing of Afghanis was and still is doable, but to what end? Even setting aside the moral issues, it creates more trouble than it solves. It's not viable. A similar argument can be made for benign neglect. Both options create negatives that far outweigh their benefits, real or perceived. Perhaps, that should be hint that your choices are bogus, but let's review them anyway.

Since the option you seem to advocate is option #2, how would you offset the negatives? Failing to respond to an atrocity of that magnitude guarantees confrontation from anyone that feels the need to poke the hegemon in the eye, and leaves the perpetrators free to plan and execute another atrocity. We can feel high-minded and pure, but the problem will only grow worse. By the time 9/11 occurred, al Qaeda had already engaged in similar activities on several occasions, so their continued attempts must be assumed.

Actually, I indicated that I didn't like two options set on the table (although, in reality, there was only one).

All other responses lie in the center ground somewhere. All have issues. I picked an option that seemed to me a 'best' overall solution, though 'best' does not imply 'good'. In this case, 'best' is 'least bad'. Feel free to disagree, and supply an option of your own.

Something similar to Justin '77's approach seems reasonable.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Whether M&L and I (or Rick) are "liberal" is not the point. Mustang took you on over this very same issue, and he is no liberal.

Congress has the power of the purse. However, no republican system that I'm aware of functions without an independent judiciary, with its own constitutional responsibilities and its own hierarchical structure.

Judges are appointed for life-long terms, or, if elected, their terms are almost always more lengthy than those of the average legislator. In this way, judges can look at the big picture and stay out of the day-to-day business of politics. Sometimes that means making decisions that aren't popular.

Kiff, liberal means one who is etremely anti-Bush to the point of being irrationally destructive in my personal dictionary. I suggest you read it, memorize it and learn how to cope with it from this point forward. So, with that definition now available for the Liberal public consumption, Mustang was viewed by me as being a liberal poster as well.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

... All other responses lie in the center ground somewhere. All have issues. I picked an option that seemed to me a 'best' overall solution, though 'best' does not imply 'good'. In this case, 'best' is 'least bad'. Feel free to disagree, and supply an option of your own.

... Something similar to Justin '77's approach seems reasonable.

While this has a satifying ring at the emotional level, it doesn't pass the practicality test. Justin recommended Letters of Marque - essentially a bounty. We are already offering $25,000,000 for bin Laden with no takers. Apparently, the locals think bin Laden is a saint, or the equivalent at any rate. If any mercenaries have given it a go, they are now dead or wish they were.

Note: money doesn't work very well with the hyper-religous, who are looking for long term gain ... really long term. It also fails to prodice results when the parties that are most likely to be interested can't get access.

Originally Posted by The Rani

... But seriously, why not vote for someone who has actual solutions to problems, wacky or not?

I'm assuming this is intended as rhetoirical or ironic argument, because it so obviously sucks in the real world. If you want to see the result of empowering the wacky, check-out Idi Amin Dada.

Originally Posted by The Rani

... That's the entire problem with the American political system. The smooth-talkers (aka Big Fat Liars) get elected, and do nothing, while people who actually come up with solutions to problems are ridiculed for them and defeated.

Based on the smoth-talker meme, a few random conclusions:

• Lincoln sucked
• Both Roosevelts sucked
• Reagan sucked
• Clinton sucked
• But not our current embarrassment: he must be your guy.

Originally Posted by The Rani

... Fight the power, playdude!!!

Actually your best suggestion.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Simply and clearly an excellent analysis!

Thank you. We seem to march to similar drummers, though, so mutual reinforcement will be considered calculating to some of our fellow posters.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Kiff, liberal means one who is etremely anti-Bush to the point of being irrationally destructive in my personal dictionary. I suggest you read it, memorize it and learn how to cope with it from this point forward. So, with that definition now available for the Liberal public consumption, Mustang was viewed by me as being a liberal poster as well.

I kinda like the non-kook definitions -

lib·er·al
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.

I don't see your "etremely anti-Bush to the point of being irrationally destructive."

However, I could infer that you are thinking that one might be a tad upset with Bush if such a person believes themselves to be: a freeman believing in individual freedom, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties; favors freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression (e.g., a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers); favors representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies; is free from prejudice or bigotry, open-minded and tolerant (e.g., a liberal attitude toward foreigners), and characterized by generosity and willingness to give.

You might have something here; keep those higher-level neurons firing!

Originally Posted by The Rani

Is using the word "kook" a sign of open-mindedness and tolerance in your dictionary?

Yes, particularly when one considers how restrained I was in my response.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I'm assuming this is intended as rhetoirical or ironic argument, because it so obviously sucks in the real world. If you want to see the result of empowering the wacky, check-out Idi Amin Dada.

Another crappy analogy by you. We elect presidents, not dictators. And when did I say I favored empowering the wacky? I said I favored real solutions over smooth-talking. The wackiness issue is secondary.

If it's so unimportant, then why bring it up? Personally, I like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. Both tend to speak their minds. I want them in Congress. I wouldn't want either any closer to the White House than that.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

But not our current embarrassment: he must be your guy.

Again, stop putting words in my mouth to make yourself feel better.

You ranted about smooth-talkers, not me.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

... We are already offering $25,000,000 for bin Laden with no takers...

Maybe that's because we concurrently bombed him into a cave, thereby making it impossible for ANYONE to find him, as well as pissing off the innocent bystander locals who might have otherwise been tempted to take the money and run.

We offered the bounty first. No takers; in fact, no interest. BTW, it's now $50M - still no takers. The people he hangs with are not interested in money. They want eternal life ... virgins are optional.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We offered the bounty first. No takers; in fact, no interest. BTW, it's now $50M - still no takers. The people he hangs with are not interested in money. They want eternal life ... virgins are optional.

Not to mention that the people he hangs with don't much trust the US to actually pay that bounty...

Originally Posted by The Rani

..kooky little self-restrained buddy playdude

Sounds like some kind of kinky sex toy.

Hmm.

Maybe you should consider getting a boyfriend? He might help with this nihilism of yours along with your not-so-subtle cries for attention - I'm sure the two are related.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Hahaha ... you wish.

So much for self-restraint, eh?

Just trying to be helpful.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Kiff, liberal means one who is etremely anti-Bush to the point of being irrationally destructive in my personal dictionary. I suggest you read it, memorize it and learn how to cope with it from this point forward. So, with that definition now available for the Liberal public consumption, Mustang was viewed by me as being a liberal poster as well.

Ah, I see. Like the Bush administration, you created your own reality.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Thank you. We seem to march to similar drummers, though, so mutual reinforcement will be considered calculating to some of our fellow posters.

Ah, fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.**

And for God's sake, don't let the counters of ideological beans stop you guys from telling it like it is. Wear those liberal labels with pride!!


**I'm long overdue for a profanity, even if I have to borrow one.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We offered the bounty first. No takers; in fact, no interest. BTW, it's now $50M - still no takers. The people he hangs with are not interested in money. They want eternal life ... virgins are optional.

Hmmmmm....

Over to Justin for a response.....

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

**I'm long overdue for a profanity, even if I have to borrow one.

If one never ever uses profanity, can one sell one's allocation of obscenities like one sells carbon credits?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

If one never ever uses profanity, can one sell one's allocation of obscenities like one sells carbon credits?

Heh.