Sudan
 

Unlike you, I've never quite been willing to pay 99 cents a minute to talk to her, but the thought is tempting.

Can We Dispell the Myth
 

Of course, that's part of the reason for at least some of the resistance.

However, Club, we still have about 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq -- who patrol with the Iraqi police force and National Guard. The current government of Iraq is appointed by a process moderated by the U.S. and U.N. Therefore, even if democracy will give the iraqi government credibility, democracy doesn't exist yet.

So, if you think that the "occupation" is over and that Iraq is now a "democracy", you're living on Mars. If you think Bush has governed as a centrist, you're living on Pluto.

S_A_M


P.S. Consider, for example, his environmental, energy, and labor policies. Are you suggesting that running government policies principally for the interest of big companies is somehow "liberal"?

Sudan
 

What are you a luddite of sorts, sts??!? I use the $19.99/mo live webcam feed hook-up. The Master Sgt. Lindy hook-up, iyw.

If you ever give in to your temptations just remember, you have to provide your own pair of panties. My mom lent me a pair-it seemed that much more West Virginny. No offence.

Those records still don't cover the Alabama period.

S_A_M

Can We Dispell the Myth
 

The current head of Iraq is a former Baathist & CIA source turned strongman installed by the U.S. government and dependant on U.S. troops; one of his first actions was to declare that a state of emergency justified martial law. Of course, maybe it will all work out nicely in the end.

Can We Dispell the Myth
 

Why did we not declare martial law?

Can We Dispell the Myth
 

Too busy changing conforming their tax code to the 2000 GOP platform.

Two Threads into One
 

Ty: "one of his first actions was to declare that a state of emergency justified martial law."

Do you think he was wrong? Seemed clearly right to me.

Second issue:

I think that a multinational (preferably) force should enter SUdan very soon both to: (a) secure the flow of supplies to the displaced refugees and to (b) wipe the janjaweed from the face of the Earth if they ride out against that force or the civilian population again. If the Sudanese Army or Air Force tries anything, we could send the Ohio National Guard to defeat them.

We're getting close to the point where (I hope) the U.S. will consider doing so, because it seems that the Sudanese government either can't or won't stop the forces that they've unleashed against those tribes. The size of the force could be a fraction of that in Iraq, and the logistics _much_ easier (especially if we get cooperation from some of the Mediterranean countries -- Egypt would be ideal).

We would prefer not to do this because we don't want to upset the chance of a settlement of the North-South civil war. However, it is past the point (IIRC) where tens of thousands of people have begun to die. Hundreds of thousands displaced.

There is little press coverage in the West because the Sudanese government allows no press access to those areas, and because most of America cares less about Africa than about Europe.

As a practical matter, I think, it will have to be a mission under U.N. auspices. I'm not sure we have the combat power (esp. airlift) to do it ourselves -- with the Iraq commitment. I hope they grow a sack soon. We can only hear "Stop that! I mean it!" From Kofi and Colin so many times before it loses effect.

S_A_M

Two Threads into One
 

I can understand why he did it, but it's hardly auspicious for the rule of law, since the legal framework we left them did not give him the power to do this. If Iraq was all about installing our own strongman in Hussein's stead, someone ought to tell Bush before he makes any more speeches on the subject.

Sudan
 

Oh, bite me. Keep sucking off Gattigap. If you suck hard enough, he'll tell you you your foreign policy knowledge is so amazing you ought to get an ambassadorship.

Gattigap - Its half and half. I read the opinions of most of the idiots on this board who generally get their politics from either the left or right plank and decide to post something nuts. But then, in the midst of a rant, I start thinking "Fuck, that ain't a bad point..." and wind up including something sensible and insightful. So I'd say my shit here is half and half. Usually I intend to piss off the idiots here who sound like Bob herbert or Frank Rich soundalikes, but then I wind up sounding like Ann Coulter.

Now, back to Ty... I did not say ALL Muslims' sole purpose was to rid the world of infidels. I said that "radical" Islam's purpose. I'm glad I carefully inserted "radical" - it really worked well. And I thought I had bad reading comprehension. Now, if you omitted "radical" on purpose, which I don't think you'd do because you're obviously smarter than that (even if you do get a load of your politics from some shitass liberal sources... my guess is, you actually took your poli-geo professor in college seriously), please bag the cheap technique. You don't need it.

I'm nearly ready to cancel my WSJ and NYTimes subscription, not because I have a problem with biased opeds and reporting, but because the plank-following is so fucking pathetic. The only guy who seems to blend the left and right a little bit is safire, and he's lost all credibility in my book for his continued belief that WMD will be found.

Sudan
 

I only have one mouth, big boy.

I apologize for oversimplifying your views, but what with the suggestion that we do a Dresden on major parts of Pakistan, it seemed to me in keeping with the spirit of your proposal.

Who are we killing? A lot of the radical Islamists live in the same neighborhoods as the non-radical types, and if we warn the other guys to leave, the radicals might just be smart enough to leave too.

And I can't figure out whether you think we ought to just kill them because they won't be deterred, etc., or whether we ought to be ruthless because then they'll back off like they did in Syria and Iraq.

Coming soon: a Bush flip-flop on the creation of a Director of National Intelligence (or some such post), timed to deflate Kerry's bounce from the convention.

Seeing as the current headline on cnn.com is "Dems Ready to Party", detracting from the convention is a worthwhile endeavor. (and the same will be true in a month.)

I anxiously await all of the conservatives who have whined about so-called Kerry flip-flops to nail Bush for having bottling this thing up in committee for months and then reversing himself only when it suits his short-term political interests.

I agree about the conventions, of course, but it is the summer -- would you rather the media got excited about sharks? It's always something, so why not this?

I'm not sure we haven't reached the point where a shark bite is more consequential than the conventions.

Sudan
 

Both. Ever have a real nasty case where its hard to get what you need, so you ask for something unreasonable and just become a real son of a bitch about things, knowing that if you make a forceful enough demand for 10, you'll get the 7 you need? Although on many levels, I loathe that behavior, I also respect the determination of such bastards. Assad didn't have to clear cut the entire neighborhood, but he knew if he didn't, he was fucked down the road. I am also comfortable with clear-cutting religious fanatics because they do nothing to move humanity forward. If we had no religion, we might not have the nonsense we have today. Organized religion speaks to man's fear of death. Nothing more, nothing less. Its a primordial defense mechanism - a conscious self-fooling. I believe in a God on the basis that something had to create the world. I don't believe in organized religion, or that there's any way to "talk" with him. My theory in that regard is just as disprovable as the "faith" these lunatics tout, but at least mine is grounded in rational thought, rather than fables. The Koran is not rational thought, and I don't respect anyone who'd believe it whole hog. Such a person should offend all rational thinking men. We're not losing any Nobel prize winners or progressive future leaders when we bulldoze a slum packed with madrasses. I say good riddance, and while I couldn't do it myself, I respect Assad's wise decision to do so. He nailed the cancer early and it hasn't been back. Nobody else has had such success.

Nothing makes a better argument than success. Assad was successful. Them's just facts.

Sudan
 

"Re-Baathification and Genocide in '04!"

Sudan
 

And some of the California sillies here thought I was a bit nuts when I justified Pinochet's execution of suspected radical leftists (of the revolution-exporting variety).

My brutha.

In Jail 'till November
 

I haven't seen it reported in print media yet, but NPR did a story today on Iraqi Gen. Amir Saadi's continued detention. [spree: see last audio link, bottom of page]

According to the story, al Saadi was the general responsible for telling the world in the months headed up to GWII that Iraq had not stockpiles of WMD.

Though events would seem to have played out in his favor, he was placed on the deck of cards, arrested, and has remained in detention since, even though his usefulness in detailing the location of hidden WMDs has probably come and gone.

The story details, among other things, that:

• The US interrogators have told him that "interrogations are over" for him;
• The US has no reason to detain him; even Bremer recommended that al Saadi be released;
• as a reflection of his (lack of) importance, al Saadi was not included on the list of prisioners that the Iraqi government had to officially charge in order to justify their continued imprisonment;
• al Saadi has been told that he won't be released before the elections because his release would be fodder for the Democrats; in any event
• The US official position is that al Saadi remains detained because he's a "security risk." No explanation forthcoming of how that's so

Let's hope that we can articulate a specific reason that this Iraqi general needs to be held in a cell for several more months, after all other traditional reasons (like interrogations) have expired, because the reason of keeping down Kerry's "bump" really sucks ass.

Gattigap

Sudan
 

Pinochet was a Pisco Sour drinking weenie.

Sudan
 

I.e., the ends justify being mean, or, extremism in the defense of moderation is no vice.

In Jail 'till November
 

I heard that too, and was amazed. Fucking appalling. Its unreal. The monkee in charge of his current detention could only offer "security risk" as an explanation?

Fuck Bush. God, I wish somebody real would run.

Sudan
 

We have a zero sum game on our hands. The moral textbook gets a little thinner in theose circumstances.

Sudan
 

Come on, sebby, that's just not true. Muslims are not animals operating by instinct. People turn to radical Islam, and can turn away from it. We win the war by winning the ideological struggle, not by killing them all. Trying only to kill them, and using brutal force, plays into their hands. President Bush, to his credit, kinda gets this, but only sometimes, and the guy can't execute.

Sudan
 

Commies are little girls.

Sudan
 

Hey, a dialogue would be great, but that ain't going to happen. The only thing that would stop the radicals in the short term would be a very sudden influx of money and jobs, which tend to cause people to forget religious fanaticism. But the lack of eductaion and work and societal infrastructure necessary to get the radicals from tribal to modern thinking obver any period less than 50 years just isn't there. What are we to do? Experiment with trying undertsand these people while they try their damndest to kill us? I agree that understanding is necessary, but we have to be rather brutal, to make their lifestyle less attractive to younger people who may convert. A kid may think twice about joining any movement where its adherenets tend to die early and brutally.

You're arguing with people from the 13th century.

* Ahem, you wrongly accused me of calling ALL muslims brutish animals. Again, you know damn well that's not my position. Try to be more careful. I may advocate violence toward religious nuts, but I'm no bigot toward reasonable Muslims. They're just caught up in a shit storm on these issue like the rest of us.

Sudan
 

You must be new here.

Sudan
 

Unclear who we're supposed to be killing in the meantime.

I wish I could find a link to someone who said this better than me, but fundamentalism is -- counterintuitively -- a reaction to modern times, not a symptom of people living in the past. Look at what Osama does -- they know modern technology and have no problem using it against us.

I know that you mean better than what you seemed to be implying.

For Club:

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/...PCHART.650.gif

Explanation:

• So where do the Democratic nominees really fit along the left-right spectrum? Well, you get a different answer if your calculations are based on nearly all votes cast by the candidates in their Senate careers. Using this measure, we have arrayed Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards from left to right in the above figure based on their voting history in the Senate. For comparison's sake, we also have included Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, John McCain of Arizona, and the parties' median senators. We even have scores for President Bush (from his announced positions on roll call votes while president) and Vice President Dick Cheney (based on the votes he cast when he represented Wyoming in the House of Representatives from 1979 through 1988).
  
  Assertions that the Democrats' presumptive nominees are extreme liberals fall flat. True, Mr. Kerry's voting history places him to the left of today's median Senate Democrat (Tom Daschle of South Dakota). But he is closer to the center of the Democratic Party than he is to the most liberal senators, including Mr. Kennedy. John Edwards falls just to the right of the median Democrat. In fact, he is nearly indistinguishable from Mr. Lieberman, the Democrats' vice presidential candidate in 2000.
  
  On the other side of the partisan divide, Mr. Bush - like Mr. Kerry - is more extreme than his party's median senator (Richard Shelby of Alabama). He is also noticeably more conservative than his primary challenger in 2000, John McCain. So any assertion that the Democratic candidates are out of the mainstream might easily be applied to the Republicans as well. In fact, if any of the four candidates on the national party tickets this year is out of the mainstream, it is Mr. Cheney, who in his last full term in the House was on the right flank of roughly 90 percent of his Republican colleagues.

link

Jesus. All that ample money and nifty technology at their fingertips, and their graphic looks like it was drawn by an intern with a ruler and a worn-down No.2 pencil.

Sudan
 

Martin Marty has said "people who turn to fundamentalism are people who cannot tolerate paradox, contradiction, ambiguity, and choice." In a sense, the more contact you have with media, consumer markets, and modern life, the more likely you are to develop the "skill" (if that's the right term) to accomodate these things. Modernity gives fundamentalism something to reject.

The common thread to all fundamentalism (Christian, Islamic, Jewish or even non-Abrahamic) is the confluence of the beliefs that (1) God is in the business of punishing humankind for its transgressions; and (2) human history has taken a turn for the worse, or, at least, there was a Golden Age in which things were much better for God and man because we were doing what God wants. "Radical nostalgia" is one way to think about fundamentalism.

In the case of Christian fundamentalism, some of it has a anti-technological component (the Amish, for example) but far more often it does not (televangelists, for example).

However, it is a mistake to think that modernization is a cure for fundamentalism. Fundamentalists will always seek cultural or geographical enclaves.

I don't fear fundamentalism; I fear people who are unafraid of killing or dying. The way to solve that problem is to make sure that even within the context of our enemies' camps, they have something to live for that makes volunteering for death a bad option.

The computer technology that creates that effect is very, very expensive.

Will Gore Lose His Shit on Live TV?
 

I can't wait to watch Gore give his speech.

So they use current voting history for everyone, but in the case of Cheney - they ignore his announced positions on roll call votes while vice-president and votes in the Senate - and instead use his votes as a lower-ranking Rep from 17-25 years ago?

This is such an obvious attempt to push the one side further out to the right and push Bush out towards it. Laughable.

I was just about to edit my earlier post to note that Nick Confessore -- not a conservative -- calls this "the most flawed piece of analysis I've seen this year." "As far as I can tell, the op-ed communicates literally no useful information on how "liberal" or "conservative" any of these politicians are."

But the graphics were cool.

Sudan
 

My god. It's like you grew up down the same dirt road from me.

David Brooks in tomorrow's NYT:

• He has unified the party through sheer force of prolixity. Bill Clinton pandered by telling you what you wanted to hear. John Kerry panders by never telling you what you don't want to hear. This is negative pandering; he talks a lot without really ruling anything out so you can draw your own conclusions.
  
  Over the last few days I have spoken to Democrats who are firmly convinced he is a hawkish free-trading fiscal conservative who believes that life begins at conception, that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that the U.S. should bulk up its forces in Iraq. I've also spoken to other Democrats just as convinced the Kerry is really a protectionist, socially liberal dove who actually opposes the war and supports gay marriage and nationalized health care.
  
  Kerry has been talking for years, and yet such is the thicket of his verbiage that he has achieved almost complete strategic ambiguity.

Skankette
 

Michelle Malkin calls out Washingtonienne and Wonkette for the golddiggers they really are.

DNC
 

I just watched a good portion of the Convention rebroadcast on PBS (with Lehrer, fuck me). Anyway:

- Hillary is still as a flat as ever, but god do they love her.

- Milkulski has to be one of the worst speakers I've ever seen. Boxer and Feinstein must have been laughing behind her back.

- Even after throwing out his initial speech and being told to start from scratch, Gore still had to repeatedly go back to Florida.

- Bill is still far and away the best politician we got.

- Who was that old Yoda-looking man who kept describing this administration inept in foreign affairs? (It was suggested to me it could be Carter, but no way would he have the hubris to fault anyone in that sphere.)

Skankette
 

Slave -- get this -- the Earth isn't flat anymore, either! It's shaped like a tennis ball!