The most popular candidates within the Republican wing of the Republican Party are Huckabee and Ron Paul. At this point, Huckabee’s primary problem is name-recognition, or the lack thereof.
He doesn’t have the instant name-recognition of Rudy, Hillary, or McCain, and—unlike Romney—he doesn’t have the cash flow to buy instant name-recognition. Thus far he’s been unable to break out of the “second tier”—which is unfortunate.
As for Ron Paul, I think more highly of his supporters than I think of his positions. As far as counterterrorism is concerned, I don’t think he understands the enemy, as a result of which he doesn’t understand how to cope with the enemy.
What he says about “blowback” has a modicum of truth. As such, his position has the appeal of a half-truth. Just enough truth to make it plausible, but not enough truth to make it responsible.
His position in a nutshell is that the jihadis wouldn’t be over here unless we were over there. Well, that’s catchy, and it’s true in a sense, but it’s truer than he knows.
The jihadis define American presence far more broadly than our military presence. We are “over there” through our economic might and cultural penetration. We are “over there” when we come into their living rooms via the TV and Internet and Hollywood fare.
The main problem that the jihadis have with America is not due to our physical presence in the Mideast, but our cultural and economic dominance.
We are not going to appease them by withdrawing into the borders of the continental United States and redeploy our resources to organizing the annual State Fair—for the impact of American culture would still extend beyond the Eastern Seaboard to reach the Mideast. This is a war of values as much as bullets. They feel threatened by our values. Western values—for better or worse—undermine traditional Islamic social values (e.g. Sharia). So this is ultimately an ideological battle, and not a war to make the world safe for Standard Oil. They also resent our economic clout.
And I’d add that, of itself, “blowback” is not much of an argument. Yes, when you fight back, you make your enemy mad at you. So what? Should we let a bully rule the schoolyard because we’re afraid of getting a black-eye if we don’t give in to his demands?
Ron Paul is also too rule bound to adapt to the new tactics of a new enemy and offer real time countermeasures. Sorry, but he reminds me of hospital bureaucrat who lets the gunshot victim bleed to death in the ER while the paperwork is being processed.
You can’t fight a suicide bomber in triplicate. Indeed, the jihadis are trying to shackle us in reams of red tape.
Although Ron Paul has cast himself in the part of the doughty Constitutionalist, his method acting doesn’t overcome the suspension of disbelief. I’m sure he’s sincere, but his idea of checks and balances seems to be limited to the role of Congress and the Court as a check on the White House—without any corresponding check on Congress or the Court.
He’d deny that, of course, but as a practical matter he’s attempting to hamstring the Executive in the “war on terror.” At that level he’s interchangeable with a lawyer for the ACLU.
Huckabee is my first-pick. Fred Thompson is underwhelming. But he has a fairly conservative voting record. If Huckabee can’t break out of the pack, then I’d be prepared to vote for Thompson as an uninspiring, but adequate compromise candidate.
Huckabee is certainly likable, but given his views on taxes and federal government intervention into health issues, I don't think he can be identified as the only true Republican in the running. The Republican Party has seen much success with its coalition of Economic Conservatives, National Defense Conservatives, and Social Conservatives, with a number of libertarian leaning individuals who recognize the left as the more intrusive party.
ReplyDeleteHuckabee's obvious appeal is to social conservatives. He sounds pretty conservative on Defense issues, but has no experience there. He makes the Economic Conservatives and the libertarian leaning Republicans nervous. Much like Gulianni makes the Social Conservative wing of the party nervous (but understandbly moreso).
Steve,
ReplyDeleteWhat about Ayatollah Khomeini? He tried to get terrorists to attack the US largely based on 'ideology' and was largely unsuccessful. I really don't see any actual evidence or argumentation that you've offered for your assertions, yet you talk of 'blowback' not being much of an argument... Have you read "Blowback", "Imperial Hubris", or "Dying to Win"?
Don't get me wrong, I do think that Islam is a dangerous religion, but your interventionism does not follow.
I mean, heck, why should they be mad at our sanctions, bombing, et al for the past 10 or so years? They are crazy to be mad about that! They should love us for all the goodness we've shown them, even though we may be killing their families in the process! Even Ms Albright thinks that the deaths of 'hundreds of thousands of children' related to our sanctions are 'worth the price'...
Sorry, but I fail to understand the neo-fascism of popular American political philosophy.
Thanks for this, Steve. There's still enough time between now and January for things to happen. I hope Huckabee is able to step up.
ReplyDeletelayman said...
ReplyDelete“Huckabee is certainly likable, but given his views on taxes and federal government intervention into health issues, I don't think he can be identified as the only true Republican in the running.”
I don’t think he’s ideal. I just think he has the best all-around position. (Duncan Hunter is also good, but he’s hardly competitive.)
“anonymous said...
“Steve, __What about Ayatollah Khomeini? He tried to get terrorists to attack the US largely based on 'ideology' and was largely unsuccessful.”
How is that comparable to a nuclear Iran?
“I really don't see any actual evidence or argumentation that you've offered for your assertions, yet you talk of 'blowback' not being much of an argument...”
Which assertions in particular?
“Have you read ‘Blowback’, ‘Imperial Hubris’, or ‘Dying to Win’?”
I’ve actually lived through much of the period in question. So I don’t have to get all my information from partisan history books.
“Don't get me wrong, I do think that Islam is a dangerous religion, but your interventionism does not follow.”
Depends on how you define “interventionism.” There are degrees of interventionism.
“I mean, heck, why should they be mad at our sanctions, bombing, et al for the past 10 or so years?”
Those weren’t “our” sanctions. They were UN sanctions, not US sanctions.
“They are crazy to be mad about that!”
Many or most Iraqis greeted us as liberators. They didn’t have a problem with the invasion, per se, or regime-change, per se. To the extent that they’ve turned against us, that’s due to the management of the postwar situation.
Let’s also not forget that the Iraqi Kurds and Iraqi Shiites were mad at Bush 41 because he wasn’t more aggressive in crushing the Republican Guard during the Gulf War.
“They should love us for all the goodness we've shown them, even though we may be killing their families in the process!”
Most of the civilian casualties in Iraq come from Muslims killing other Muslims.
“Sorry, but I fail to understand the neo-fascism of popular American political philosophy.”
The way you skew the historical record may help to explain your lack of geopolitical discernment.
“anonymous said...
ReplyDelete“Steve, __What about Ayatollah Khomeini? He tried to get terrorists to attack the US largely based on 'ideology' and was largely unsuccessful.”
“How is that comparable to a nuclear Iran?”
I didn’t say it was comparable to a nuclear Iran. The point was that he attempted to get terrorists to attack us for the reasons you mentioned in your post and it wasn’t nearly as successful.
“Which assertions in particular?”
See above.
“I’ve actually lived through much of the period in question. So I don’t have to get all my information from partisan history books.”
Oh right… and O.J. Simpson lived through the murders also. Did you live through the New Testament period too? I don’t see how that comment is relevant. Since you lived through it, then you just know you are right! Did you get your news straight from the actors? Or the news media? Nevertheless, these are not *merely* history books.
“Depends on how you define “interventionism.” There are degrees of interventionism.”
I mean military interventionism.
“Those weren’t “our” sanctions. They were UN sanctions, not US sanctions.”
So we didn’t acquiesce? Are you saying that the US was not one of the most vociferous proponents of them? Are you saying that your political leaders did not think the price was ‘worth it’?
“Many or most Iraqis greeted us as liberators. They didn’t have a problem with the invasion, per se, or regime-change, per se. To the extent that they’ve turned against us, that’s due to the management of the postwar situation.”
And you know this how (the many or most part)? But I don’t doubt that some would want us to get rid of Saddam, esp since he was too secular for some of them.
“Let’s also not forget that the Iraqi Kurds and Iraqi Shiites were mad at Bush 41 because he wasn’t more aggressive in crushing the Republican Guard during the Gulf War.”
I’m not sure the relevance of this?
“Most of the civilian casualties in Iraq come from Muslims killing other Muslims.”
This ignores my point. As a matter of fact, your preceding three paragraphs ignored my point, which was primarily *our* intervention over there for the past 10 or so years and the hatred that developed from it. Saying things like, “most of the civilian casualties come from Muslims killing other Muslims’ is a red herring and dodges the point. But let’s not stop at 10 years, let’s go back 60 years.
“The way you skew the historical record may help to explain your lack of geopolitical discernment.”
Yeah, ok, Steve. I can do that too: “The way you skew the historical record may help to explain your lack of geopolitical discernment.”
I care not to have a back and forth with you, Steve, but you are a Fascist, plain and simple. You commented that Shamgar should be sent to the Gulags, but it is you who has the same basic attitude as the Communists, the Nazis in Germany, and the Fascists in Italy.
Regards
anonymous said...
ReplyDelete“I didn’t say it was comparable to a nuclear Iran. The point was that he attempted to get terrorists to attack us for the reasons you mentioned in your post and it wasn’t nearly as successful.”
So what? As experts in counterterrorism constantly remind us, a terrorist can fail 99 times out of 100. He only needs to get lucky every once and a while to succeed.
“Oh right… and O.J. Simpson lived through the murders also.”
And the point of that analogy is what, exactly? Actually, O.J.’s in an excellent position to know who the killer was precisely because he was at the scene of the crime at the time the crime was committed. He just doesn’t admit his guilt. So this analogy doesn’t help your argument, such as it is.
“Did you live through the New Testament period too?”
Now you’re being stupid, which is fine with me. If your only arguments are stupid arguments, that makes my job easy.
“I don’t see how that comment is relevant. Since you lived through it, then you just know you are right! Did you get your news straight from the actors? Or the news media?”
When you actually live through a widely publicized event or series of events, in real time, you have multiple sources of information.
“I mean military interventionism.”
Simplistic since there are also degrees of military interventionism. There’s a difference between a ground offensive and an air strike.
“So we didn’t acquiesce? Are you saying that the US was not one of the most vociferous proponents of them?”
You like to indulge in a lot of sloppy generalizations, then when I call your hand, you try to put me on the defensive. It’s your problem, not mine, that I’m having to correct you.
It’s your job to present a historically accurate objection. If and when you’re prepared to do that, I’ll respond.
Why would they hate “us” in particular if the sanctions were UN sanctions rather than US sanctions? By your logic, they should hate every nation-state in the UN that voted for the sanctions.
“Are you saying that your political leaders did not think the price was ‘worth it’?”
Who cares? I wasn’t a policymaker in the administration at that time.
“And you know this how (the many or most part)?”
Live coverage of Iraqis greeting our troops, &c.
“I’m not sure the relevance of this?”
You can’t follow your own argument. Your claim is that they are mad at us because we meddle too much in their internal affairs.
But where the Gulf War is concerned, two of the factions (the Kurds and Shiites of Iraqi) were made at Bush 41 because he didn’t intervene more forcefully and systematically to support their efforts to overthrow Saddam—or at least to protect them against Saddam’s reprisals.
“This ignores my point.”
To the contrary, I’m answering you on your own grounds. You have a bad habit of making sloppy generalizations, then getting in a huff when correct you.
You said, “even though we may be killing their families in the process!” So you’re smearing our soldiers. When I challenge you, you have to back peddle from your defamatory characterization of our troops.
“Saying things like, “most of the civilian casualties come from Muslims killing other Muslims’ is a red herring and dodges the point.”
If the police give chase to a felon, and an innocent bystander is run over in the process, who is to blame? The police or the felon?
Are the police to blame if a fatal accident occurs in hot pursuit of a felon? I’d say, no.
It makes a difference who is killing whom. If you’re too morally blind to see that, there’s nothing more I need to say.
“But let’s not stop at 10 years, let’s go back 60 years.”
Back to what? The state of Israel? The Cold War?
Yes, we formed a number of alliances (some in the Mideast) to defeat the Soviet Empire during the Cold War. I’d rather suffer the “blowback” than live in a global gulag.
And I appreciate having Israel as an ally. Jews are better allies than Muslims.
“I care not to have a back and forth with you, Steve.”
Prudent, since you’d lose the argument.
“But you are a Fascist, plain and simple.”
Now my feelings are hurt. I’ll charge you for the Kleenex.
“You commented that Shamgar should be sent to the Gulags.”
For reasons which you omit to mention.
"I care not to have a back and forth with you, Steve, but you are a Fascist, plain and simple. You commented that Shamgar should be sent to the Gulags, but it is you who has the same basic attitude as the Communists, the Nazis in Germany, and the Fascists in Italy."
ReplyDeleteHi Mrs. Shamgar.
For me, any of the Democratic candidates are superior to the Republican field. This is because all of the latter would continue the disastrous Bush policies in Iraq. I suppose Huckabee is the least objectionable. At least he's not a clown or a flip-flopper or a dud, like Thompson.
ReplyDeleteSteve said...
ReplyDelete“So what? As experts in counterterrorism constantly remind us, a terrorist can fail 99 times out of 100. He only needs to get lucky every once and a while to succeed.”
And??? It still doesn’t follow that they hate us for our “freedom”, “economic dominance”, or whatever it is you assert. And my comments about Khomeini have not been responded to.
“And the point of that analogy is what, exactly? Actually, O.J.’s in an excellent position to know who the killer was precisely because he was at the scene of the crime at the time the crime was committed. He just doesn’t admit his guilt. So this analogy doesn’t help your argument, such as it is.”
The point is that it doesn’t matter if you lived through it or not. You could very well have a warped view of the matter even if you did.
“Now you’re being stupid, which is fine with me. If your only arguments are stupid arguments, that makes my job easy.”
You are the one who is being “stupid”… “Hey, everyone, I lived through the events! I am right. I have many sources…” Come off of it, Steve…
“When you actually live through a widely publicized event or series of events, in real time, you have multiple sources of information.”
So? What’s your point? Are you saying that we no longer have multiple sources of information? Does that entail you got the right information or the right view of things? What about the misnamed Civil War? Both North and South lived through it, but had different conclusions. Are both right? Oh wait, the authors of those books I mentioned lived through ‘your time periods’ as well! How about that?
“Simplistic since there are also degrees of military interventionism. There’s a difference between a ground offensive and an air strike.”
Yeah it’s simplistic. *NO* military interventionism. It’s not a matter of degree.
“You like to indulge in a lot of sloppy generalizations, then when I call your hand, you try to put me on the defensive. It’s your problem, not mine, that I’m having to correct you.”
And how is this a ‘sloppy generalization’? Simple questions, Steve.
“It’s your job to present a historically accurate objection. If and when you’re prepared to do that, I’ll respond.”
I’ll just quote you, “Prudent, since you’d lose the argument.”
“Why would they hate “us” in particular if the sanctions were UN sanctions rather than US sanctions? By your logic, they should hate every nation-state in the UN that voted for the sanctions.”
Umm see my questions above, you know, the ones you ignored… And I never said they hated only us… Good job, Steve. You do know that the UK and other interventionist countries get attacked correct? Don’t limit my comments to merely the U.S.
“Who cares? I wasn’t a policymaker in the administration at that time.”
You are separating this from its context, Steve.
“Live coverage of Iraqis greeting our troops, &c.”
So you are telling me that ‘most’ Iraqis were on television? But you are probably right. I mean the media would never spin anything! I mean look at Michelle Malkin. She said Ron Paul was a ‘9/11 Truther’!
“You can’t follow your own argument. Your claim is that they are mad at us because we meddle too much in their internal affairs.
But where the Gulf War is concerned, two of the factions (the Kurds and Shiites of Iraqi) were made at Bush 41 because he didn’t intervene more forcefully and systematically to support their efforts to overthrow Saddam—or at least to protect them against Saddam’s reprisals.”
They may have been mad at us for that, but so what? Is that the reason why they have been attacking us in recent years (because we didn’t support them enough)? I guess Osama forgot to mention that. Oh, but wait, we can’t listen to him (or the CIA) because he’s an evil person. This still fails to address my statements.
“You said, “even though we may be killing their families in the process!” So you’re smearing our soldiers. When I challenge you, you have to back peddle from your defamatory characterization of our troops.”
I’m not smearing anyone… That’s a good Fascist tactic though, Steve. Let’s see if you can come up with more. What’s even funnier is that though you say this, Ron Paul has received more donations from the military than the other warmongering candidates…
Now the killing may be *unintentional*, but do they care? Would you care if your family died as a result of Chinese bombing of America even though they were considered “collateral damage” by the Chinese?
“Saying things like, “most of the civilian casualties come from Muslims killing other Muslims’ is a red herring and dodges the point.
If the police give chase to a felon, and an innocent bystander is run over in the process, who is to blame? The police or the felon?
Are the police to blame if a fatal accident occurs in hot pursuit of a felon? I’d say, no.
It makes a difference who is killing whom. If you’re too morally blind to see that, there’s nothing more I need to say.”
If you are too morally blind to read my comments, there’s nothing more I need to say to you. Commenting that most of them are killed by other Muslims does not negate the fact that we are killing them as well, whether intentional or not. Do you think that ‘most’ of them see our presence as being ‘police vs felon’? Honestly, it doesn’t matter how *you* see it.
I’m sure your fellow fascists and socialists in the former Soviet Union, Germany and elsewhere would be proud of your ‘police vs felon’ analogy – oh wait, I can’t say that! I’m smearing the troops! That’s how it goes right. Silence all dissent through patriotic propaganda, right? Whatever…
“Back to what? The state of Israel? The Cold War?”
That and Iran in 1953 or so. You should know, after all, you lived through it…
“Yes, we formed a number of alliances (some in the Mideast) to defeat the Soviet Empire during the Cold War. I’d rather suffer the “blowback” than live in a global gulag.”
Now your ignorance is showing. You wouldn’t live in a global gulag… Please don’t tell me you fell for the Domino Theory? You do know we are now trading with Vietnam, right? Socialism kills itself. Economic calculation is impossible due to the massive amounts of information needed by politicians. The demise of Socialism was theorized in the 1920’s. Why do you think Yeltsin was shocked when he visited a supermarket in the U.S.?
“And I appreciate having Israel as an ally. Jews are better allies than Muslims.”
I’d rather take the philosophy of the Founding Fathers in regards to foreign policy…
“Prudent, since you’d lose the argument.”
Cute, Steve.
“Now my feelings are hurt. I’ll charge you for the Kleenex.”
Well at least you don’t object to being a Fascist.
“For reasons which you omit to mention.”
Whatever the reasons, my comment was meant to show it applies to *you*, whether it applies to him or not.
To the other anon:
I’m not Shamgar’s wife. Assumptions…
Oh wait, we can't believe what someone *actually* says (re: Osama). So I guess if you think I'm Shamgar's wife then that's all that matters....
Oh and I really love this, how should I say it, strawman:
ReplyDelete"And I’d add that, of itself, “blowback” is not much of an argument. Yes, when you fight back, you make your enemy mad at you. So what? Should we let a bully rule the schoolyard because we’re afraid of getting a black-eye if we don’t give in to his demands?"
Now we are just 'fighting back'...
It's obvious that Anonymous has no clue what a Fascist actually is.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, where are all the people who were complaining earlier that it's the neo-cons who use labels rather than debate? They need to reign in this anonymous freak.
You are awesome, Peter!
ReplyDeleteI've seen a lot of these comments (anon's) on Reconstructionist blogs.
ReplyDeleteThey changed my mind from being a no-questions-asked Bush supporter to someone who is fairly against any continuance of the war. [Of course, this was due to my study of the nature of Islam as it relates to politics rather than the Reconstructionist policy of strict isolationism.]
However, these guys' rhetoric is simply nauseating. Everyone who disagrees with them is automatically a "fascist" and a "war-mongerer" and an "advocate for mass murder", blah, blah, blah. They're extremely hot-headed.
Second, I completely stopped going to their blogs when they advocated some of the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Third, their hatred of Israel based on their hatred of Rabbinism (which is indeed an invention of the devil and his angels) is completely irrational. They seem to be ignorant (or perhaps forget) that many of Muhammad's teachings came straight out of the Mishnah and the Targums! The same sort of racist/anti-gentile teachings found in Jewish writings are also found in the Quran and the Hadiths.
Fourth, they call our soldiers "murderers" even though they're the ones fighting the terrorists who, while not attacking our troops, attack elementary schools with car bombs. These Reconstructionists then have the temerity to join the left in objecting to calling the terrorists what they are and instead call them "freedom-fighters"! The thinking is completely backwards.
Lastly, they are quite naive about the nature of Islamic terrorism. Like Ron Paul, they seem to think that the only cause of the Islamic world's hatred of us could be that we're in their lands. While this is a half-truth (as Steve pointed out), the full truth is that our being in their lands is only increasing an already existent hatred of us as infidels. They do, in fact, desire to put everyone under Sharia as the Koran and Hadith order them to. So, we're just blowing oxygen on an already existent wild-fire, a fire that has to be dealt with sometime and in some fashion.
Sometimes you have to burn part of the forest to keep the fire from spreading.
anonymous said...
ReplyDelete“And??? It still doesn’t follow that they hate us for our ‘freedom’.”
A straw man argument since I didn’t cite that as one of their motivations.
“‘Economic dominance”, or whatever it is you assert.”
The jihadis resent our economic dominance because it makes the infidel superior to the Muslim. It makes us the superpower or hyperpower. This is antithetical to Islamic eschatology, according to which Muslims should dominate the world. As Barnard Lewis explains:
The world is divided into the House of Islam and the House of War, the Dar al-Islam and the Dar al-harb. The Dar al-Islam is all those lands in which a Muslim government rules and the Holy Law of Islam prevails. Non-Muslims may live there on Muslim sufferance. The outside world, which has not yet been subjugated, is called the "House of War," and strictly speaking a perpetual state of jihad, of holy war, is imposed by the law. The law also provided that the jihad might be interrupted by truces as and when appropriate. In fact, the periods of peace and war were not vastly different from those which existed between the Christian states of Europe for most of European history.
The law thus divides unbelievers theologically into those who have a book and profess what Islam recognizes as a divine religion and those who do not; politically into dhimmis, those who have accepted the supremacy of the Muslim state and the primacy of the Muslims, and harbis, the denizens of the Dar al-harb, the House of War, who remain outside the Islamic frontier, and with whom therefore there is in principle, a canonically obligatory perpetual state of war until the whole world is either converted or subjugated.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/daralislam.html
“And my comments about Khomeini have not been responded to.”
Because they fail to prove your point. He was religiously motivated to attack us, but lacked the wherewithal to pull it off. How is that relevant to the threat from other jihadis who don’t necessarily suffer from his limitations (e.g. Bin Laden)?
“The point is that it doesn’t matter if you lived through it or not.”
If you didn’t live through an event, then your only source of knowledge is after the fact.
“You are the one who is being “stupid”… “Hey, everyone, I lived through the events! I am right. I have many sources…” Come off of it, Steve…”
You continue your stupid rant, changing the subject in the process. Did I say that living through an event automatically makes one right? No. That’s another evasive straw man argument of yours.
But if I lived during the 1C, I wouldn’t need to read a book about the 1C to know what it was like to live during the 1C.
“So? What’s your point? Are you saying that we no longer have multiple sources of information? Does that entail you got the right information or the right view of things? What about the misnamed Civil War? Both North and South lived through it, but had different conclusions. Are both right? Oh wait, the authors of those books I mentioned lived through ‘your time periods’ as well! How about that?”
Historians rely on eyewitness accounts. Stonewall Jackson didn’t need to read a biography of Stonewall Jackson’s campaigns to learn about Stonewall Jackson’s campaigns. He was there.
“Yeah it’s simplistic. *NO* military interventionism. It’s not a matter of degree.”
Your rejection is unqualified, by that doesn’t mean the principle of military intervention is unqualified.
“And how is this a ‘sloppy generalization’? Simple questions, Steve.”
Sorry you can’t remember your own arguments. This is what you originally said:
“I mean, heck, why should they be mad at our sanctions, bombing, et al for the past 10 or so years? They are crazy to be mad about that! They should love us for all the goodness we've shown them, even though we may be killing their families in the process! Even Ms Albright thinks that the deaths of 'hundreds of thousands of children' related to our sanctions are 'worth the price'...”
So you were originally referring to American foreign policy, as if the sanctions were American sanctions. When challenged, you then try to modify your original statement:
“So we didn’t acquiesce? Are you saying that the US was not one of the most vociferous proponents of them?”
But that wasn’t your original claim. When challenged, you attempt to rewrite what you originally said and then backdate your revision as if that’s what you said all along.
“Umm see my questions above, you know, the ones you ignored… And I never said they hated only us… Good job, Steve. You do know that the UK and other interventionist countries get attacked correct? Don’t limit my comments to merely the U.S.”
Once again, when you’re cornered on your own comments, you prevaricate. Your original comments specifically targeted American foreign policy. You don’t get to slink and slither your way out of this without admitting your mistake.
“So you are telling me that ‘most’ Iraqis were on television? But you are probably right. I mean the media would never spin anything!”
So are you saying that this was staged footage from a Hollywood sound studio? We also have polling data on Iraqi public opinion throughout the course of the occupation. So we can gauge a shift in opinion.
“They may have been mad at us for that, but so what? Is that the reason why they have been attacking us in recent years (because we didn’t support them enough)?”
Now you’re contradicting yourself on two grounds:
i) You first said they’re mad at us because we meddle too much in their internal affairs. I drew attention to an obvious counterexample. In response to that, you shift gears, substituting a new argument for your original, now discredited argument.
ii) You also said, in your previous reply, “But let’s not stop at 10 years, let’s go back 60 years.”
But now you’ve reversed yourself. You only want to talk about the recent past.
You’re making no effort to be intellectually consistent. You squirm and squeal.
“I guess Osama forgot to mention that.”
Irrelevant since Osama has his own reasons for opposing us.
“Oh, but wait, we can’t listen to him.”
A fallacious argument from silence. The fact that he doesn’t mention one reason for opposing the US hardly means that we should disregard his stated reasons.
“(or the CIA)”
You really want to listen to the CIA, do you? Let’s see. The current Secretary of Defense (Robert Gates) is a former DCI. He supports the war effort.
The current DCI (Michael Hayden) supports the war effort. His predecessor (Porter Goss) supported the war effort. His predecessor (George Tenet) supported the war effort. Clinton’s DCI (James Woolsey) is another supporter. So is former DCI James Schlesinger.
So, are you going to be true to your own argument?
“I’m not smearing anyone…”
Once more, this is what you originally said:
“They should love us for all the goodness we've shown them, even though we may be killing their families in the process!”
Who would be doing the killing? Our troops on the ground.
“What’s even funnier is that though you say this, Ron Paul has received more donations from the military than the other warmongering candidates…”
You really want to know what our men in uniform think? Fine.
Has any commander of CENTCOM opposed the war effort? Has any commander of NORAD opposed the war effort? Has any member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff opposed the war effort? Has any commander of NATO opposed the war effort?
Many of these individuals have since retired from activity duty, so they are free to oppose the war effort without fear of professional reprisal.
Even a partisan critic like Wesley Clark doesn’t attack the war effort, per se, but only the execution of the war on terror.
“Would you care if your family died as a result of Chinese bombing of America even though they were considered ‘collateral damage’ by the Chinese?”
That would depend on whether the Chinese action was otherwise justifiable.
“Commenting that most of them are killed by other Muslims does not negate the fact that we are killing them as well, whether intentional or not.”
And the regime of Saddam Hussein was deliberately targeting his own citizens in large numbers before we arrived on the scene.
Anyway, you’re conflating two distinct issues: the invasion and the occupation.
“Commenting that most of them are killed by other Muslims does not negate the fact that we are killing them as well, whether intentional or not.”
This is a cheap little cop-out which cowards like you always take refuge in. When you level outlandish accusations, and you’re challenged on it, you pretend that there’s no difference between scurrilous objections and reasoned dissent. That’s another case of evasive hyperbole to cover your dirty tracks.
Oh, and while we’re on the subject, dissent is a two-way street. I have a right to dissent from your dissent. If you’re too pusillanimous to take criticism when you dish it out, then go back to your little sandbox where you belong.
“Now your ignorance is showing. You wouldn’t live in a global gulag… Please don’t tell me you fell for the Domino Theory? You do know we are now trading with Vietnam, right? Socialism kills itself. Economic calculation is impossible due to the massive amounts of information needed by politicians. The demise of Socialism was theorized in the 1920’s. Why do you think Yeltsin was shocked when he visited a supermarket in the U.S.?”
i) You’re contradicting yourself again. Earlier you said we should listen to the CIA. Now you’re opposing the entire Cold War containment policy.
But the Cold War was the original raison d’etre for the CIA. It was committed to the containment policy.
ii) Why do you think the fate of Vietnam is disproves the Domino Theory? When we withdrew, S. Vietnam fell to the Communists (along with Laos and Cambodia). That’s a textbook illustration of the Domino Theory in action.
iii) But you’re missing another obvious point. The idea behind the Domino Theory is that, *unless* we prosecuted a containment policy, the Soviet Empire would continue to expand. Since, however, we *did* prosecute a containment policy, we successfully prevented that outcome. So you have done nothing to falsify the Domino Theory.
iv) You’re also ignoring the fact that the containment policy contributed to the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union. The arms race, along with the proxy wars we fought with Russia’s satellites, spent them into the ground. That’s why Gorbachev threw in the towel.
“I’d rather take the philosophy of the Founding Fathers in regards to foreign policy…”
Stupid example since the Founding Fathers were quite pragmatic in their choice of allies. During the Revolutionary War, they accepted help wherever they could find it.
“Well at least you don’t object to being a Fascist.”
That’s because they wear such stylish uniforms and drive such fancy cars.
Excellent Steve! I've been "iffy" about Ron Paul to the point of concern.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't Christians just pray to their god that it blows all their enemies away to kingdom come? Oh, that's right, prayer doesn't accomplish anything. No wonder they stopped praying and prefer to blog instead.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletesteve said....
ReplyDelete"A straw man argument since I didn’t cite that as one of their motivations."
This wasn't meant to be separated from below, which is why I followed with the "whatever". But I'll admit, a sloppy sentence on my part.
"The jihadis resent our economic dominance because it makes the infidel superior to the Muslim. It makes us the superpower or hyperpower. This is antithetical to Islamic eschatology, according to which Muslims should dominate the world. As Barnard Lewis explains:
The world is divided into the House of Islam and the House of War, the Dar al-Islam and the Dar al-harb. The Dar al-Islam is all those lands in which a Muslim government rules and the Holy Law of Islam prevails. Non-Muslims may live there on Muslim sufferance. The outside world, which has not yet been subjugated, is called the "House of War," and strictly speaking a perpetual state of jihad, of holy war, is imposed by the law. The law also provided that the jihad might be interrupted by truces as and when appropriate. In fact, the periods of peace and war were not vastly different from those which existed between the Christian states of Europe for most of European history.
The law thus divides unbelievers theologically into those who have a book and profess what Islam recognizes as a divine religion and those who do not; politically into dhimmis, those who have accepted the supremacy of the Muslim state and the primacy of the Muslims, and harbis, the denizens of the Dar al-harb, the House of War, who remain outside the Islamic frontier, and with whom therefore there is in principle, a canonically obligatory perpetual state of war until the whole world is either converted or subjugated.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/daralislam.html"
Ok, I don't necessarily disagree with you here, which is what I was saying earlier when I commented that Islam is dangerous. But my point, and is why I brought up Khomeini, is that without the occupations, the above has not in and of itself not been able to motivate them as significantly.
"Because they fail to prove your point. He was religiously motivated to attack us, but lacked the wherewithal to pull it off. How is that relevant to the threat from other jihadis who don’t necessarily suffer from his limitations (e.g. Bin Laden)?"
They prove my point since he was largely unsuccessful in his attempts. Bin Laden has not 'suffered from his limitations' primarily due to he being able to point to specific greivances.
"Sorry you can’t remember your own arguments. This is what you originally said:
So you were originally referring to American foreign policy, as if the sanctions were American sanctions. When challenged, you then try to modify your original statement:
But that wasn’t your original claim. When challenged, you attempt to rewrite what you originally said and then backdate your revision as if that’s what you said all along.
Once again, when you’re cornered on your own comments, you prevaricate. Your original comments specifically targeted American foreign policy. You don’t get to slink and slither your way out of this without admitting your mistake.
Oh so it's not American foreign policy... Yeah ok. So we can support and participate in the "UN's" foreign policy, but it's not really American foreign policy? So following your logic, I could be a part of the maffia, support and participate in their illicit activities, but those activities are not really *my* activities.. Your distinction is irrelevant.
"So are you saying that this was staged footage from a Hollywood sound studio? We also have polling data on Iraqi public opinion throughout the course of the occupation. So we can gauge a shift in opinion."
No I'm not saying that.
"Now you’re contradicting yourself on two grounds:
i) You first said they’re mad at us because we meddle too much in their internal affairs. I drew attention to an obvious counterexample. In response to that, you shift gears, substituting a new argument for your original, now discredited argument.
You are incredible. In effect, what I said was that even if they are mad at us for not becoming too involved, that is not the reason they attacked us. That's hardly shifting to a new argument.
"ii) You also said, in your previous reply, “But let’s not stop at 10 years, let’s go back 60 years.”
But now you’ve reversed yourself. You only want to talk about the recent past."
Oh really... I said that I 'only' want to talk about the recent past? hmmm... You are grabbing for anything you can get.
"Irrelevant since Osama has his own reasons for opposing us."
Not irrelevant at all. Robert Pape has done research on all recorded suicide terrorist attacks over the past several decades and the primary motivating factor is occupation. And Islam is not the primary perpetrator of suicide terrorism.
"A fallacious argument from silence. The fact that he doesn’t mention one reason for opposing the US hardly means that we should disregard his stated reasons."
If you don't disregard his stated reasons, then it doesn't apply to you. I threw that in there b/c many do.
"You really want to listen to the CIA, do you? Let’s see. The current Secretary of Defense (Robert Gates) is a former DCI. He supports the war effort.
The current DCI (Michael Hayden) supports the war effort. His predecessor (Porter Goss) supported the war effort. His predecessor (George Tenet) supported the war effort. Clinton’s DCI (James Woolsey) is another supporter. So is former DCI James Schlesinger.
So, are you going to be true to your own argument?"
My CIA comment was directed at the concept of 'blowback'. Your tactic is take one word and build an entire critique on it, all without understanding what I meant.... amazing... Your argument would work only if I supported the CIA in an unqualified manner, which, unfortunately for your argument, I don't.
"Once more, this is what you originally said:
“They should love us for all the goodness we've shown them, even though we may be killing their families in the process!”
Who would be doing the killing? Our troops on the ground."
And again, I fail to see how this 'smears our troops'. Is collateral damage a good thing to you, Steve? Economic sanctions kill as well.
"You really want to know what our men in uniform think? Fine.
Has any commander of CENTCOM opposed the war effort? Has any commander of NORAD opposed the war effort? Has any member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff opposed the war effort? Has any commander of NATO opposed the war effort?
Many of these individuals have since retired from activity duty, so they are free to oppose the war effort without fear of professional reprisal.
Even a partisan critic like Wesley Clark doesn’t attack the war effort, per se, but only the execution of the war on terror."
Yawn.... My comments on the military were not meant to show unqualified support from the military. Rather, it only showed that I thought it was 'funny' that he received more donations than the other candidates, which is what I stated.
"And the regime of Saddam Hussein was deliberately targeting his own citizens in large numbers before we arrived on the scene."
And???
"This is a cheap little cop-out which cowards like you always take refuge in. When you level outlandish accusations, and you’re challenged on it, you pretend that there’s no difference between scurrilous objections and reasoned dissent. That’s another case of evasive hyperbole to cover your dirty tracks.
Oh, and while we’re on the subject, dissent is a two-way street. I have a right to dissent from your dissent. If you’re too pusillanimous to take criticism when you dish it out, then go back to your little sandbox where you belong."
You are cool, Steve. I said, “Commenting that most of them are killed by other Muslims does not negate the fact that we are killing them as well, whether intentional or not.” I fail to see how this is 'outlandish' nor do I "pretend that there’s no difference between scurrilous objections and reasoned dissent".
If you want to dissent, dissent away. I could care less. My problem with you is your over-the-top comments to those who dissent from you. So far I've only tried to shoot par on your course (re: over-the-top comments).
"i) You’re contradicting yourself again. Earlier you said we should listen to the CIA. Now you’re opposing the entire Cold War containment policy."
You seem to be quite dishonest. You still pretend as though I unqualifiedly support the CIA. You assume way too much.
"ii) Why do you think the fate of Vietnam is disproves the Domino Theory? When we withdrew, S. Vietnam fell to the Communists (along with Laos and Cambodia). That’s a textbook
illustration of the Domino Theory in action.
iii) But you’re missing another obvious point. The idea behind the Domino Theory is that, *unless* we prosecuted a containment policy, the Soviet Empire would continue to expand. Since, however, we *did* prosecute a containment policy, we successfully prevented that outcome. So you have done nothing to falsify the Domino Theory."
I don't think that Vietnam itself disproves the Domino Theory. I think the Domino Theory was incorrect for the most part due to Communism failing to take hold in the larger SE Asian countries. You said that if we had not formed alliances, then we'd live in a 'global gulag'. How could we live in a 'global gulag' if Communism failed to take hold in the countries Eisenhower said it would. A global gulag is, for all practical purposes, impossible. The reason the USSR lasted as long as they did was because they referenced market prices from around the world. If there was a global gulag, there would be no reference to market prices elsewhere. Basic production would be impossible.
Your iii) above is akin to saying that our government was responsible for ridding us of child labor, when the real cause was the economy.
"iv) You’re also ignoring the fact that the containment policy contributed to the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union. The arms race, along with the proxy wars we fought with Russia’s satellites, spent them into the ground. That’s why Gorbachev threw in the towel."
They wouldn't have gone bankrupt if they had not been socialist. But I don't necessarily disagree that it did not speed the process.
"Stupid example since the Founding Fathers were quite pragmatic in their choice of allies. During the Revolutionary War, they accepted help wherever they could find it."
Stupid counter-example because I'm referring to their advice for on-going foreign policy. Consequently, I fail to see how your Rev War comment is relevant.