The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Captain]

Originally posted by Spanky
Agreed.




I think there is more of a chance with a Sunni successionist movement. The Kurds and Shiites seem to agree on most everything. They both want a federated state and don't seem to conflict much. It is the Sunnis that are the problem and they are a small minority.



The problem is the Sunnis want their cake and eat it to. The want a centralized government and they want control. The reality is if they want control then the country will have to divide. The Sunnis and Kurds don't have a problem with that. The Sunnis do. They are upset with the constitution because it is not central enough. They also want control, but in a unifed democrat government they will not have control. They are just slowly have to come to terms with the fact that they do not have the divine right to run Iraq.



The problem is everyone wants us to fail. The other Arab states don't want a functioning demcracy because that will put on pressure for them to form a democracy. The rest of the world will not help because they don't want to be proven wrong in their opposition to the war.



It is my understanding that we have trained many police units and are training more.



I think that we should stay three more years and that is exactly what is going to happen. Until Bush leaves office (or the insurgency dies) we are going to be there. In three years we will be able to train the Iraqi military so they can handle the insurgency. Bush will pull out only when he thinks it is a good idea. We might as well argue what strategies the Giants will use next season. We have just about the same influence. And three years is plenty of time to get the Iraqis up to speed. What is going to happen is going to happen. We and the Senate and the Congress can debate it all we want, but in the end it is Bush's call I think we all know how he is going to handle it. The issue is what will his replacement do, but by then we will have trained anough Iraqis to pull out. So it is a moot point.

First, the idea that we shouldn't debate it because Bush is going to do what Bush is going to do is simply silly. We are Americans. We debate. And, sometimes for good, sometimes for ill, leaders listen to shifting winds in public opinion that come from debates.

Admit it, you didn't really mean that.

Secondly, I think you prescribe a "stay the same course", which means continuing to do it all ourselves with only token assistance and continuing to assume that if we do the same things but with increasing aid from Iraqis trained by us, the insurgency will ultimately die. The best historical precedents I can think of here are Latin American countries like Peru and El Salvador, but note that El Salvador's insurrection whithered after we essentially withdrew. So, it is possible, but, I think, unlikely. You also assume the Kurds and Shiites will continue to get along, but I think the only thing that unifies them is beating up on the Sunnies.

Most importantly, staying the same course means getting entangled in the Iraqi government as it develops, which strikes me as likely tangling us up in a Civil War. If we stay the same course, I fear we will turn around one day and be in still deeper, and Iraq will be a ball and chain around our country's ankle for a protracted period.

So, if Bush has to eat crow with the UN or has to negotiate hard to involve Egypt or the like involved, I think he should do it.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
That doesn't matter. You guys control nothing and won't be trusted to control anything again. You're like when Ty was 3rd string on the b-ball team and he'd dog the starters after a loss. You can criticize all you want but Coach (the american public) ain't giving you any more court time.

I think the Coach is getting pretty frustrated with the starters' inability to put points on the board. Sure, the slam dunks are oh-so-pret-tay, but all the chest-thumping in the world won't make up for the bricks and missed free throws.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
The Kurds and Shiites will get along as long as it is in their interests to do so. We need a longer view if Iraq is to succeed. For instance, what will be the effect of the Kurdish desire for an independent Kurdistan? That is far more important to them than to be part of Iraq, and I think everyone here knows that makes the Turks nervous. What will be the US position on an independent Kurdistan? Don't tell me the Turks will behave because they want into the EU; while that is true, the rest of the EU is growing increasingly disenchanted with the idea of Turkey in the EU and is likely to insist on a second-class status for Turkey. If Turkey agrees, will they have enough of a stake in EU membership to toe the line, especially in light of the increasing influence within Turkey of non-secular elements?

YOu are getting sidetracked. So far we have no reason to believe that the Shiites and the Kurds won't be able to cooperate in a federal state.

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda What will be the effect of Iran on the Shiites of Iraq? I don't have any read on that at all, but my gut says it won't be good for us. Between Iraq and a sympathetic Iran, what will be the amount of oil reserves controlled by those two? Will the Shiites of Iraq turn their backs on Iran to maintain the union with the Sunnis and Kurds imposed by a whim of the British after WWI ? Will the Kurds do the same to their brothers in Turkey?

Whatever happens the Iraq people will be better off than they were under Saddam. Who knows what will happen but a Democratic government will be a positive step. If that democratic government splits up and we have a shiite arab democracy that cozy up to a Iran. That sucks, but it is still better.

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda I think they want to survive. You have way more faith in the restraint of the Shiites and the Kurds than I do. Paybacks are a bitch, and nowhere more so than that little corner of the world.

Democracy sometimes ain't pretty. But it is better than the alternatives.

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Whine, whine, whine. bush broke Iraq, now we have to fix it. Let's stop feeling sorry for ourselves and start putting a plan together. A real plan, not this "Plan for Victory" gelatinous vomit that is code for "we don't have a fucking clue what to do next".

I am not whining, I am just stating facts. It would be irresponsible for us to turn Iraq over to other countrys because everyone else wants us to fail. Bush fixed Iraq. He got rid of Saddam. Now he is just improving it by making it a democracy.

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I have no confidence bush is going to handle it. The Iraqis apparently don't either.

It doesn't matter if you have confidence in him or not. Bush is going to do what he is going to do and there is nothing anyone can do about. All debate, in no matter what forum, is just hot air.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Nice try. I'll take those paragraphs as a tacit admission that you had a brain seizure.

????. Don't you agree that government rarely do better controlling a market than letting it operate to natural forces.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Setting aside media markets for a moment, do you accept the proposition that there are some things (say, primary education, or national defense) that a "free" market will not produce in sufficient quantities, such that some sort of government action is appropriate?

Those are not markets. Those are not consumer items. Those are things the government has to buy for society as a whole. When it comes to consumer products the government does not need to get involved. News and media are individual consumer products that the market takes care of.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop If a free market doesn't produce adequate investment in the national defense, do you conclude that the market is giving people what they want, and that it isn't our place to tell the American people how much national defense they need? Of course not.

By calling National Defense an "investment" shows that you have learned your economics from Clinton talking points and not in an economics course. National Defense is not an investment it is an expenditure. You might be able to call education and infrastructure investments because the money you spend on them creates enough growth that produce enough new tax enough to more than cover the money spent on them. That is a possible argument but still a stretch. But there is no way to argue that Defense expenditures produce enough tax revenue to pay for them selves. Defense expenditures may push some growth but not enough to produce enough revenue to recoup that tax money spent on them. Therefore it is no where close to being an investment.

Defense has to be purchased collectively so the collective has to decide how much to spend. Individuals can't make the call, the amount has to be agreed upon. News, baseballs, oranges etc are purchased by the individual so the government does not need to decide how much the market needs or how much people need.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If Congress adopted this, it wouldn't be forcing taxpayers to do anything. It would be citizens deciding to come together to use government to ensure that they get the news they need.

Would pennies fall from heaven? Someone is going to have to pay for the production of news. It is going to be the taxpayers. You are going to force the taxpayers to pay for a good they don't want. If they wanted this type of news they would pay for it.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
YOu are getting sidetracked. So far we have no reason to believe that the Shiites and the Kurds won't be able to cooperate in a federal state.

Whatever happens the Iraq people will be better off than they were under Saddam. Who knows what will happen but a Democratic government will be a positive step. If that democratic government splits up and we have a shiite arab democracy that cozy up to a Iran. That sucks, but it is still better.

You sure about that? More faith-based foreign policy. Wouldn't it be prudent to think about these things a teeny bit in advance, like what really happens if the Shiites and Kurds don't do what we think they should? If the Iranians and Iraqi Shiites jointly come out with a nuke, are we going to reinvade? I'd prefer not to have to go back there in a few years all over again.

It doesn't matter if you have confidence in him or not. Bush is going to do what he is going to do and there is nothing anyone can do about. All debate, in no matter what forum, is just hot air.

Might as well save tax dollars by dissolving Congress and the Senate. Oh, and the courts too.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Unless he's actually right. Or unless the process of having this conversation is a fundamental part of what living in a democracy is actually about, in which we should be thankful that we have a system of government in which these differences of opinion are aired, rather than fearful of such differences.

He or anyone else can't possibly know this. That is why the statement is irresponsible and unnesseary.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The one in about a year? We're not supposed to criticize the ruling party's policies for half the time? I missed that part of the framers' grand design.
.

No the election in Iraq on the fifteenth. The US election is irrelevent.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Or maybe they just think that Bush's policies have been a colossal fuck-up and are wasting American lives while endangering our national security.

No. Then they would not be saying that they know we can't win. There is no way anyone could know that, so the only reason to say it is to try and make sure the US will fail.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Captain
First, the idea that we shouldn't debate it because Bush is going to do what Bush is going to do is simply silly. We are Americans. We debate. And, sometimes for good, sometimes for ill, leaders listen to shifting winds in public opinion that come from debates.

Admit it, you didn't really mean that.

Secondly, I think you prescribe a "stay the same course", which means continuing to do it all ourselves with only token assistance and continuing to assume that if we do the same things but with increasing aid from Iraqis trained by us, the insurgency will ultimately die. The best historical precedents I can think of here are Latin American countries like Peru and El Salvador, but note that El Salvador's insurrection whithered after we essentially withdrew. So, it is possible, but, I think, unlikely. You also assume the Kurds and Shiites will continue to get along, but I think the only thing that unifies them is beating up on the Sunnies.

Most importantly, staying the same course means getting entangled in the Iraqi government as it develops, which strikes me as likely tangling us up in a Civil War. If we stay the same course, I fear we will turn around one day and be in still deeper, and Iraq will be a ball and chain around our country's ankle for a protracted period.

Open debate where the leader of a party and US Senators are saying we are fucked in a miltary action- Please find me a cite of when this has happened before. No one is saying it is illegal- it is horribly irresponsible. Again, one cite where this happened in WW II Korea, or even, I bet Vietnam.

So, if Bush has to eat crow with the UN or has to negotiate hard to involve Egypt or the like involved, I think he should do it.

You've got to be fucking kidding here. The UN? Quick question- the 3 countries that vetoed any Iraq action- which one had its Islamic immigrants go on a 3 week riot and which one just sold 1 Billion dollars worth of rocket technology to Iran. you think the vetoes were for what's best for the world? France is fucking afrain and Russia is broke. Oh, and how many general assembly resolution were passed this week like 160-10 condeming Israel. The UN?

[Spanky]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
You sure about that? More faith-based foreign policy. Wouldn't it be prudent to think about these things a teeny bit in advance, like what really happens if the Shiites and Kurds don't do what we think they should? If the Iranians and Iraqi Shiites jointly come out with a nuke, are we going to reinvade? I'd prefer not to have to go back there in a few years all over again.

I think installing a democracy is a fair risk. It could go wrong but at least we tried to improve the lives of the Iraqi people. They are no longer controlled by an evil dictator and they have a popularly elected government. Everything in foreign policy is a risk, but this one seems like a pretty good risk to me.

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda Might as well save tax dollars by dissolving Congress and the Senate. Oh, and the courts too.

Are you saying I am wrong? If Bush decides the US will stay what can the Congress, the Senate or the Courts do?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
????. Don't you agree that government rarely do better controlling a market than letting it operate to natural forces.

Apart from FX markets, very few are unregulated.

Those are not markets. Those are not consumer items. Those are things the government has to buy for society as a whole. When it comes to consumer products the government does not need to get involved. News and media are individual consumer products that the market takes care of.

We do not leave the production of national security and primary education to the free market because we know that it will not produce the right outcome. A few posts ago, we were agreeing that the free market produces not enough news and too much cheap opinion. Now you've changed your tune and have decided that the market is taking care of us. So, never mind the rest of the discussion.

Someone is going to have to pay for the production of news. It is going to be the taxpayers. You are going to force the taxpayers to pay for a good they don't want. If they wanted this type of news they would pay for it.

I'm not forcing the taxpayers to do it if their democratically elected representatives vote for it. Taxpayers -- or citizens, as the Greeks called them before Howard Jarvis came along -- decide to purchase things through the government all the time. Is it beyond your comprehension that people might decide to purchase some goods and services (think: national defense) as citizens, through their government, rather than as individual consumers?

Apparently it is.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
He or anyone else can't possibly know this. That is why the statement is irresponsible and unnesseary.

Nor can Bush know that we'll win. Dean's statement is no more irresponsible and unnecessary than anything Bush has said recently, and probably is more grounded in reality, bilmore's reality notwithstanding.

No the election in Iraq on the fifteenth. The US election is irrelevent.

I find it hard to believe that you really think that Americans should refrain from criticizing Mr. Bush's foreign policy because Iraq is going to hold an election.

No. Then they would not be saying that they know we can't win. There is no way anyone could know that, so the only reason to say it is to try and make sure the US will fail.

Please consult Occam's Razor. The likelier explanation is that he believes that what he is saying is true, though he may turn out to be wrong. See, e.g., all the stuff you guys are saying lately about Bush and WMD. (The difference being that Dean may turn out to be right.)

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Captain
First, the idea that we shouldn't debate it because Bush is going to do what Bush is going to do is simply silly. We are Americans. We debate. And, sometimes for good, sometimes for ill, leaders listen to shifting winds in public opinion that come from debates.

Admit it, you didn't really mean that.

The point I was trying to make is that all the complaining by the Senators and Reps is not going to accomplish anything. It is in Bush's hands. They can either try and help him succeed or make it more difficult to succeed.

If your team is on the football field and you don't like the plays the quarterback is calling you can either go along, get out of the way, or screw up the game and make it more difficult for your side to win. But you want your team to win. The prudent thing to do is not screw up the plays the quarterback calls just because you disagree with them. Eventhough you think he is using the wrong strategy, the chances of your team winning are better if you go along with the strategy. Bush is the Quarterback for the next three years and is going to call the plays. There is nothing anyone can do about it. No one else is going to be in charge. So are the rest of the players going to help, or make a defeat more inevitable by intentionally screwing up the plays to make sure the home team has no chance of winning. You can tell the coach you disagree with the plays but you go along with the plays and do your best because that is the best chance you have for success. But it seems to me many Dems are tripping the quarterback because they don't like the strategy and just for sour grapes.

Originally posted by Captain Secondly, I think you prescribe a "stay the same course", which means continuing to do it all ourselves with only token assistance and continuing to assume that if we do the same things but with increasing aid from Iraqis trained by us, the insurgency will ultimately die. The best historical precedents I can think of here are Latin American countries like Peru and El Salvador, but note that El Salvador's insurrection whithered after we essentially withdrew. So, it is possible, but, I think, unlikely. You also assume the Kurds and Shiites will continue to get along, but I think the only thing that unifies them is beating up on the Sunnies.

We never withdrew. We kept up our military aid the whole time. And I don't think we should stay until the insurgency dies, I think we should stay until we train the Iraqis to fight for themselves.

Originally posted by Captain Most importantly, staying the same course means getting entangled in the Iraqi government as it develops, which strikes me as likely tangling us up in a Civil War. If we stay the same course, I fear we will turn around one day and be in still deeper, and Iraq will be a ball and chain around our country's ankle for a protracted period.

If there is a strong turnout on the fifteenth (like there was in the last election) we will be training the military for a democratically elected government. Once they are up and running we can leave.

Originally posted by Captain
So, if Bush has to eat crow with the UN or has to negotiate hard to involve Egypt or the like involved, I think he should do it.

Bush isn't going to have to do anything. He has three years to train the Iraqi military and there is no way anyone can stop him from finishing that job. Three years is plenty of time to get it accomplished.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Bush isn't going to have to do anything. He has three years to train the Iraqi military and there is no way anyone can stop him from finishing that job. Three years is plenty of time to get it accomplished.

Simple factual question for you and bilmore: Have you read James Fallows' article in The Atlantic? Yes or no?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Apart from FX markets, very few are unregulated.

Fortunately in the United State very few consumer markets are regulated by the government. From now on I will use manipulate because you think that business regulation and market regulation are the same thing. When the government regulates a market, and by that decides what the consumer needs, or what the pricing should be then that is market manipulation. Can you name a consumer market where the government decides how much people need or get. Or how much of a product people should buy. Farm products are one. The government did regulate the airlines and the telecom industry but not anymore. The Government tiried to fix gas prices, but that didn't work. Some gas markets are manipulated. But now you want to decide what kind of news media people should get.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
We do not leave the production of national security and primary education to the free market because we know that it will not produce the right outcome.

Wrong. These are products only the collective can purchase. They are not consumer items. They are not even industrial items.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
A few posts ago, we were agreeing that the free market produces not enough news and too much cheap opinion. Now you've changed your tune and have decided that the market is taking care of us. So, never mind the rest of the discussion.

Wow. Yes I agree our news media produces too much opinion and not enough fact for my liking. But that does not mean I think government should do anything about it. I don't like the fact that hollywood studio use so much smoking in their moviews but that doesn't mean I think that the government should step in censor movies. I don't like the fact that Americans eat so much Junk Food but that doesn't mean I think that the government should limit the amount of Junk food someone can eat.

The American public has decided what kind of media and news shows it wants. I don't like, but because I don't like it does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the government should do something about it.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm not forcing the taxpayers to do it if their democratically elected representatives vote for it. Taxpayers -- or citizens, as the Greeks called them before Howard Jarvis came along -- decide to purchase things through the government all the time. Is it beyond your comprehension that people might decide to purchase some goods and services (think: national defense) as citizens, through their government, rather than as individual consumers?

Apparently it is.

All taxation is forced. Any money the government spends is paid for by forced taxation. You are forced to help pay for national defense even if you don't agree with it. Same goes with public education and welfare. I don't mind forcing people to pay for national defense, education and welfare. I think those things are important enough to force people to pay for. However, I don't think you should force people to pay for something unless it is absolutely necessary. Forcing people to pay for news productions is not something I think is necessary or prudent. SAme goes with fiber. If I don't think Americans are consuming enough fiber, that does not mean I want the government to go out buy metamucil and put it in everyones mail box.

You leave as many consumption decisions as you can to the individual. Especially when it comes to consumer products.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Simple factual question for you and bilmore: Have you read James Fallows' article in The Atlantic? Yes or no?

No

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Nor can Bush know that we'll win. Dean's statement is no more irresponsible and unnecessary than anything Bush has said recently, and probably is more grounded in reality, bilmore's reality notwithstanding.

Bush's statements don't make it more difficult for us to win in Iraq. Bush's statements help encourage the troops.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I find it hard to believe that you really think that Americans should refrain from criticizing Mr. Bush's foreign policy because Iraq is going to hold an election.

Why can't they hold off until after the election. What would that hurt? Unless of course they don't want the elections to succeed.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Please consult Occam's Razor. The likelier explanation is that he believes that what he is saying is true, though he may turn out to be wrong. See, e.g., all the stuff you guys are saying lately about Bush and WMD. (The difference being that Dean may turn out to be right.)

Dean couldn't possibly know that we can't win. If he believes that he is really stupid. But I doubt he is that stupid. I don't think you think he is that stupid either.