My God, you are an idiot.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I had a similar thought last night when I was watching live. If we are going to engage in this type of thing, this is exactly the way to do it.

The other thought I had, which surely will be unpopular here, is that none of this happens without Bush. The execution was terrible and his timing was way off, but I think this is the type of thing he envisioned happening.

w/o Iraq voting over and over on AJ no way any of these happen. And 2 that no one else here will agree.

The real test is whether any of these revolutions will result in elections as W did achieve. He surely started the fire, but if Egypt or Libya or Iranistan or whereever end up something like Clinton let fester in Afghanistan it would be sad; for the people there and for us here.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I had a similar thought last night when I was watching live. If we are going to engage in this type of thing, this is exactly the way to do it.

Again, let's see what happens next.

I mean, it's great that a dictator can be removed with limited outside intervention, and certainly preferable to sending U.S. ground troops into a situation that they would be very unlikely to help.

But getting rid of the bad guy is only step one.

The other thought I had, which surely will be unpopular here, is that none of this happens without Bush. The execution was terrible and his timing was way off, but I think this is the type of thing he envisioned happening.

I'm not sure I follow your thinking. Could you explain? Is it that you don't think using force to achieve regime change would have happened without Bush?

Clinton and Somalia/Bosnia/Kosovo, with their partnership with international allies/organizations and constrained military engagement seem like closer analogs to me. [ETA: Obviously, one of those was a complete and utter fiasco and another happened appallingly late.]

Or maybe you meant the Libyans (and others) would not have been inspired to revolt without the example of Iraq?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

w/o Iraq voting over and over on AJ no way any of these happen. And 2 that no one else here will agree.

I think it's an interesting question. On the one hand, I think autocracy is inherently unstable, and especially so in an increasingly globalized world (i.e. 1989 didn't happen because of Korea and Vietnam). On the other hand, there didn't seem to be much movement in that direction before we "liberated" Iraq.

Interestingly, perhaps where W deserves the clearest credit is in severely weakening the Western instinct to allow fear of unsavory democratically elected regimes to result in opposition to democracy.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I heard someone suggest last week that as traditional welfare has gone away, more people turn to disability. So perhaps they were disabled before but weren't driven to get benefits that way.

Many are workers who have some arguable basis to claim disability and, fearing layoffs, are trying to secure a revenue stream.

I have seen it first hand. In a previous professional incarnation, I litigated on behalf of private insureds. Hence, I still get some referrals here and there. In the past year, I've been flooded with them. Two who asked me to handle appeals have admitted they would like to continue working, but it made more sense, given their tenuous job security, to go for the guaranteed money.

I'm disgusted by some of the people bringing specious claims. These couch stains seeking benefits for fibromyalgia, bipolar disorders and bad backs (best claim in the world, btw... it can never be fully verified true or false) are making it hard on lots of people with legitimate claims (MS, chemotherapy-related cognitive deficiency, etc.).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

w/o Iraq voting over and over on AJ no way any of these happen. And 2 that no one else here will agree.

The real test is whether any of these revolutions will result in elections as W did achieve. He surely started the fire, but if Egypt or Libya or Iranistan or whereever end up something like Clinton let fester in Afghanistan it would be sad; for the people there and for us here.

Do you really think any of this, or are you just trolling?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm disgusted by some of the people bringing specious claims. These couch stains seeking benefits for fibromyalgia, bipolar disorders and bad backs (best claim in the world, btw... it can never be fully verified true or false) are making it hard on lots of people with legitimate claims (MS, chemotherapy-related cognitive deficiency, etc.).

Got anything that would work for me??

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

The other thought I had, which surely will be unpopular here, is that none of this happens without Bush. The execution was terrible and his timing was way off, but I think this is the type of thing he envisioned happening.

I don't get what you think Bush did that changed anything in Libya.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

serious question- given that the stimulus didn't work (i understand you feel the stimulus wasn't big enough, or too much tax cut, but it didn't work), is it a success that is was $800B instead of $200B? If it had been $200B it still wouldn't have worked but we'd owe less.

You're using the same illogic the Left used assailing Bush for allegedly neglecting domestic security in favor of foreign interventions. Nobody ever gets credit for preventing something.

And isn't it proof of the Stimulus's effectiveness that, coinciding with its exhaustion, the economy started to falter? Where would it have gone if we'd never had any Stimulus?

You're a Hayek fan. So am I. The problem with allowing things to collapse naturally is, What happens in the interim? We live in Mad Max Thunderdome, that's what happens.

I'm a nut. I'd love to live through that kind of volatility. Problem is, my family, my parents, my friends... I don't think they'd like that. Along with 200 million or so other people in the country who would lose their fucking minds.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

On the way up, perhaps, and maybe that's the key here. Surely they go up much slower than they come down. Maybe the NATO plane was close enough to the launcher to catch it going up. Once it comes down, there is no way that an air-to-air missile would be fast enough, and I doubt it could carry a sufficient guidance system.

Um.... any object that follows a ballistic trajectory goes up as fast as it comes down.

The issue isn't whether it's going up or down, it's how high it goes -- the missile is going to be slower as it closer to top of its trajectory, regardless of whether it is going up or down. With an ICBM, that point is very very high about the Earth. With a Scud, it presumably isn't, so maybe good radar plus good planes plus good missiles enables it to be shot down.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

w/o Iraq voting over and over on AJ no way any of these happen. And 2 that no one else here will agree.

The real test is whether any of these revolutions will result in elections as W did achieve. He surely started the fire, but if Egypt or Libya or Iranistan or whereever end up something like Clinton let fester in Afghanistan it would be sad; for the people there and for us here.

2. If it weren't for Ws war in Iraq, the Muslims in Kosovo would never have rebelled and Clinton would never have been willing to help them.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't get what you think Bush did that changed anything in Libya.

Club, i can count this, correct?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

2. If it weren't for Ws war in Iraq, the Muslims in Kosovo would never have rebelled and Clinton would never have been willing to help them.

Think it's been simmering since all of those "Muslims voting in Kosovo news clips?" I'm starting to see why you think gattigap smart.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Um.... any object that follows a ballistic trajectory goes up as fast as it comes down.

I do not think this is true. The missile has to overcome gravity on the way up. The opposite is true on the way down. After lift-off, a rocket may move rather slowly, relative to the speed it will have just before it lands.

The issue isn't whether it's going up or down, it's how high it goes -- the missile is going to be slower as it closer to top of its trajectory, regardless of whether it is going up or down. With an ICBM, that point is very very high about the Earth. With a Scud, it presumably isn't, so maybe good radar plus good planes plus good missiles enables it to be shot down.

I am unreliably informed that a SCUD's maximum altitude is ~200 km, far above the operating altitude of warplanes.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I do not think this is true. The missile has to overcome gravity on the way up. The opposite is true on the way down. After lift-off, a rocket may move rather slowly, relative to the speed it will have just before it lands.



I am unreliably informed that a SCUD's maximum altitude is ~200 km, far above the operating altitude of warplanes.

it depends how far away the target is, what were they shooting at?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Club, i can count this, correct?

You may not be familiar with the Algerian War, when Algerians revolted against their French oppressors, but most Libyans are probably familiar with that history. Or with 1969, when a band of military officers in another North African country* overthrew their king in the name of freedom, abolished the monarchy, and proclaimed a republic.

* I.e., Libya.