*roundtrip ticket
Abandon the War on Terror?
I knew that would get ya.
Chris Bowers wrote an interesting piece yesterday about why the whole "war on terror" undermines the Democratic argument. He postulates that the "war on terror" is a phrase invented by the Bush team which frames the US's national security debate in an inherently pro-Republican context. According to Bowers, the term "war on terror" connotes (emphasis his):
[T]he need for continuing escalation of the size and influence of the military industrial complex; a simplistic conceptualization of identity revolving primarily around the notion of a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West; a view that threats can only be countered and tamed through the use of force; justification of any United States military action overseas, whether unilateral or pre-emptive.
I myself have questioned the phrasing of the "war on terror" -- if it's a war, when will we know it's been won? Bush himself said he doesn't think "you can win it". It also sounds suspiciously like the "war on drugs" -- and we all know how well that went.
While Bowers offers up several points where the Democratic party has its own very clear policies on international intervention, such as the prosecution of war criminals, preventing genocide, support for internal democratic groups as well as funding of economic and humanitarian aid, he disappointingly doesn't give an alternative frame by which Democrats could escape from this Republican rhetoric.
But I think he may be onto something. Just about every progressive out there laments the Democratic party's seemingly permanent default mode of defining itself against the GOP, rather than on its own set of values. Since the Democratic party is weak in the voters' minds on the war on terror and more historically on national security in general, offering a clear, fresh, overall policy on security might not be a bad idea. We could define it as a "Strategy for Security" (just throwing out an idea) by promoting progress on social issues both at home and abroad, while emphasizing the need to maintain American military power, but as a force for protecting, supporting, and promoting that progress. A continued American presence in Iraq would be completely compatible with such a policy (for example), but pre-emptive wars of choice would not. With all the talk these days of the Dems' need to take a stand on "moral issues", Democrats could focus the debate on the morality of this position.
We all know that the Democrats can never win by continuing to be the party of un-Elephants. At a time when the War in Iraq is losing popular support, this may be the time to make our assault on the centerpiece of Republican policy -- if we have the guts.
It was only a matter of time
As anyone could have expected, the Bush foreign policy is now producing a noticeably negative effect on the US economy, according to an article by Jim Lobe. While Bush had hoped his (denail of his) weak dollar policy (the dollar is now worth less than 3 złoty) would stem the ballooning trade deficit, cheap American products seem not to be enticing Europeans and Canadians.
Some choice excerpts:
Twenty percent of respondents in Europe and Canada said they consciously avoided buying U.S. products as a protest against those policies. That finding was consistent with a similar poll carried out by GMI three weeks after Bush's November election victory. . .
Half of the entire sample said they distrusted U.S. companies, at least in part because of the U.S. foreign policy. Seventy-nine percent said they distrusted the U.S. government for the same reason, while 39 percent said they distrusted the American public.
We have officially lost the world's trust, and it will not only cost us our physical security, but also our economic security. Thank you, red America.
Only the blind
From the Post:
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe said that despite some shortcomings, the elections were largely fair.
"I cannot express to you how delighted I am to say that in our collective view, Ukraine's elections have moved substantially closer to meeting OSCE and other European standards in such a short period of time," Bruce George, special coordinator for the short-term observers, said at a news conference. "In our judgment, the people of this great country can be truly proud that yesterday they took a great step toward free and democratic elections by electing the next president of Ukraine."
Yanukovych dismissed that judgment, saying "only the blind couldn't see how many violations there were."
A Yushchenko spokeswoman, Irina Heraschenko, said the opposition was not worried by Yanukovych's planned appeal.
"He has the right to go to the courts," she said. "But his appeal should be based upon facts, not disappointment. And we haven't heard any facts."
She noted that Yanukovych's claim that 4.8 million people had been disenfranchised far exceeded any previous tally of the vote at home by the disabled, and that under the new regulations, everyone still had the right to apply for an at-home ballot.
Yanukovych also said he wanted his appeal heard by the entire Supreme Court of 85 judges, not the Supreme Court civil panel that overturned a Nov. 21 election in which Yanukovych was declared the official winner.
"I don't trust them," he said of the judges who heard Yushchenko's appeal.
"Yanukovych obviously did not consult any lawyers," said Sergei Koziakov, a lawyer with a leading Kiev firm. "This is all emotion. The procedural codes of Ukraine do not allow such cases to be heard by the entire Supreme Court."
 A supporter of Ukraine's Viktor Yushchenko, holding a Polish flag, shouts at a rally in Kiev. Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski was among the leaders to congratulate Yushchenko.
A much more lonely fight
From the Times:
This time, in a reversal of the Nov. 21 election, it was Mr. Yanukovich who was refusing to accept the outcome. Speaking Monday evening at his headquarters, he asserted that a huge number of Ukrainians had been denied access to the polls, either by restrictive new voting rules or by intimidation by Mr. Yushchenko's supporters. He said he would file a challenge to the Supreme Court, seeking cancellation of the results.
"This is a crying fact: Millions of Ukrainian citizens did not have a chance to vote," he said. "They were thrown out. They were humiliated. There were more than 4,800,000 of such people."
Mr. Yanukovich's claim did not square with the reports of international observers or journalists, and although for a moment Kiev seemed bound for a continued standoff in this protracted race, the prime minister's challenge appeared destined to go forward without independent corroboration or European support.
Furthermore, while Mr. Yanukovich appeared to be following the Yushchenko playbook in protesting the results, there were other unmistakable differences. Mr. Yushchenko's complaints last month were matched not just by Western leaders but by a huge outpouring of support in Ukraine. Parliament also took up his case.
But Mr. Yanukovich was stepping into a much more lonely fight. He mustered few supporters in the capital on Monday, and Parliament ignored him, announcing plans through a spokesman to prepare for Mr. Yushchenko's inauguration.
A few of Prime Minister Yanukovich's supporters did show up on Monday to wave his distinctive blue and white flags near his headquarters. But they numbered only a few dozen, and seemed more worried than inspired.
...
Mr. Yanukovich had previously said he planned to bring huge numbers of his supporters to Kiev in the event he lost the race, but his supporters on the streets on Monday said they were local people, and they showed little signs of organization or preparation.
On the corner outside the prime minister's headquarters, three young men had only one banner to wave, and they shared a single bottle of beer.
"There were falsifications on the Yushchenko side," said one of them, Doniyel Yashikov, 18, a student at the Interior Ministry's law enforcement academy. "I will never recognize him."
Asked how he would resist, Mr. Yashikov said he would go to rallies. There were no rallies in sight, just cars passing by with their drivers and passengers largely ignoring him. Many of their antennas bore the orange ribbons of the Yushchenko campaign.
As we Democrats can attest, it's no fun losing an election. But when the results are clear and the election is fair, you pack up, go home, and work at becoming an opposition. Not even Putin will help them now.
Let Freedom Ring
 According to Gazeta Wyborcza (Polish language link), Ukraine's Central Election Commission has declared Yushchenko the winner of yesterday's elections.
From the BBC:
RESULTS SO FAR
Yushchenko: 52.3%
Yanukovych: 43.9%
Turnout: 77%
Source: Ukraine Central Election Commission, with 98% of votes counted
Welcome to New Europe, Ukraine. We've been waiting.
Open thread
My family would like me to spend some time with them now that I'm here, but that last thread was getting a bit crowded, so I decided to post a new one. You can continue from the last thread here, but I'll also throw out a couple new topics of discussion.
1. Donald Rumsfeld sucks. Discuss.
2. Kerik -- just a nanny thing? Ha! GWB's new attorney general isn't getting off to a very good start if he can't even dig up dirt on this guy with a trail of corruption a mile long. GWB picked this guy because of his "gut" feeling. What the hell does that say about his gut?
Not just about intel anymore
According to an article in the The New York Times today, the Pentagon is trying to increase the role of the military in intelligence-collection operations.
"Not so strange," you might say. "After all, the President has just signed a bill significantly reducing the Pentagon's oversight over intelligence. Rummy's just looking to muscle back into the intel racket."
Indeed.
But this passage gave me pause:
"Right now, we're looking at providing Special Operations forces some of the flexibility the C.I.A. has had for years," said a Defense Department official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the plan has not yet been approved.
Flexibility? What might that mean?
Remember water boarding?
From Newsweek's June 21 Issue
"There was a spike in a lot of intel that we were picking up in terms of more attacks" on America, said Gen. James Hill, chief of the U.S. Southern Command. "We weren't getting anything out of [Mohamed al Qatani]" using standard techniques outlined in Army Field Manual 34-52. So CIA and military-intel interrogators came up with new tactics based on the sorts of methods that U.S. Special Forces are specifically trained to resist, a Defense source says.
Is the Pentagon now trying to give Special Forces the power to use those methods? -- What the CIA does with interrogation subjects is barely legal, if at all.
From MSNBC:
Counterterrorism officials reportedly said that the methods used by the CIA are so harsh that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has warned its agents not to participate in the interrogations of high-level detainees — the techniques employed by the CIA would be prohibited in criminal cases and could compromise FBI agents in future cases.
Right now, the Pentagon is describing the proposal as mostly about "commencing combat operations chiefly to obtain intelligence."
From the Times:
Until now, intelligence operations run by the Pentagon have focused primarily on gathering information about enemy forces. But the overarching proposal being drafted in the Pentagon, which encompasses General Boykin's efforts, would focus military intelligence operations increasingly on counterterrorism and counterproliferation, areas in which the C.I.A. has played the leading role.
The "overarching proposal" -- But if Special Forces got those other powers, Rummy would no longer have to worry about the illegal abuse of prisoners.
Most of it wouldn't be illegal anymore.
And if you think members of the Special Forces don't do prisons, you'd be wrong.
From the New Yorker:
Last June [2003], Janis Karpinski, an Army reserve brigadier general, was named commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade and put in charge of military prisons in Iraq. General Karpinski, the only female commander in the war zone, was an experienced operations and intelligence officer who had served with the Special Forces and in the 1991 Gulf War, but she had never run a prison system.
Is this about a power-struggle between the CIA and the Pentagon?
Sure.
But that's not the whole story. If we're not careful, the Pentagon is going to sneak legalized torture into the military. And right under our noses.
Is it or isn't it?
Is Poland growing in significance for the U.S., or isn't it? My inkling, with the importance of the Boeing contract, Bush's mention of Kwaśniewski at every opportunity, and Bush's trust of him during the Ukraine crisis -- not to mention Poland's involvement in Iraq (reports say that today 3 Polish soldiers died -- bringing the grand total up to 16), tell me that Poland is a growing power, and indeed, a more important ally to the US than it was just a few years ago. But I'm living here, and I must admit that I WANT the situation to be that way. You folk out there don't have that bias, so, what do you think?
Here's an article from the Los Angeles Times that says Poles disagree. Please remember that Poles are generally ornery to begin with.
Here's an excerpt:
"It's like this," said Polish legislator Henryk Dzido. "America and Poland are a married couple. The husband -- America -- is a despot, cheating and fooling around on his Polish wife. But she still loves him. Then one day the man tells the wife she has to support herself, but, not to fear, because he will still be her husband."
Before everyone starts in with the "We saved their asses in WWII, and this is the thanks we get?" line, please remember that Poland wasn't saved -- it was abandoned by the US to the Russians at Yalta, and that America's involvement in WWII wasn't completely altruistic. However, Poles do remain thankful to Americans for what they did do (a great deal, admittedly), and Poles are probably the biggest Americophiles in Europe, if not the world. It has been said that the Poles love America more than Americans ...
So, how big of an ally is Poland to the US really?
The Heartland Strategy
From Will Marshall at the Progressive Policy Institute:
Can it work?
Pied Piper?
There are those who say that privatizing Social Security may be beneficial -- remember that SS nowadays doesn't even give you a return at the same level of inflation.
That's not to mention all the problems it will have in the future. Reducing benefits and pushing up the retirement age are the painful, but inevitable solutions we'll have to one day come to terms with. Perhaps putting some of that money into the stock market could generate better returns in order to help relieve the squeeze. Some believe it could solve the problem entirely.
And some folks believe that the President's scheme to privatize a portion of SS is just a red herring, designed to start us on the slow roll to abolishing social security altogether.
Yesterday, Josh Marshall made this claim.
He says:
It wouldn't be abolished overnight, of course, but phased out over time. So any oldsters collecting benefits now wouldn't need to worry. And the same would probably go for pre-fogies too ... say, anyone over 55.
But that's the essence of it: abolishing Social Security or not.
So here are some questions:
Should we abolish Social Security and replace it with a system of loosely-federally-regulated 401ks, or not? Why?
Don't you suspect that a number of representatives in the federal government might see this as a goal? How many do you think in the House? The Senate?
In other words:
With the conservative wing of the Republican Party controlling the party, couldn't it just be possible that this is what they have up their sleeve?
Or could Bush ever manage such a feat? Getting it past the public would be a challenge.
But if it happens slowly ...
Should we follow President Bush down the road to privatizing social security, hoping he won't drive us off the cliff? Or are you confident that we can slam on the breaks, even with him in the drivers' seat?
On Mr Bush's irresponsible plan to accomplish SS privatization, please see yesterday's Bull Moose.
Canadians not afraid of homos
In a landmark ruling today, the Canadian Supreme Court has declared homosexual marriage constitutional.
However, the court added that religious officials cannot be forced to perform unions against their beliefs.
Which had, for some reason, been a controversial issue. I'm no expert on Canadian Law, but this last part seems awfully reasonable.
If approved by a majority of the House of Commons, as widely expected, Canada would become the third country to embrace marriage by homosexuals and lesbians. Belgium and the Netherlands are the other two.
There was a day when America was the pioneer when it came to human rights. Is our colleague Andrew correct in believing we're now experiencing the age of America's decline?
Lessons from Warsaw's Past
In keeping with the Polish focus on this website, I'm posting a link to this article about a 6-page diary found from the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. The most telling passage is her last:
The only thing we are left with is our hiding place. Of course this will not be a safe place for very long.
If any of you don't know about the uprising in Warsaw's Jewish Ghetto in 1943, I suggest you bone up on your WWII history. Long story short, is this:
On April 19, 1943, the Warsaw ghetto uprising began after German troops and police entered the ghetto to deport its surviving inhabitants. Seven hundred and fifty fighters fought the heavily armed and well-trained Germans. The ghetto fighters were able to hold out for nearly a month, but on May 16, 1943, the revolt ended. The Germans had slowly crushed the resistance. Of the more than 56,000 Jews captured, about 7,000 were shot, and the remainder were deported to killing centers or concentration camps. Link here.
Nigdy więcej wojny.
Bull Moose on Rummy, part II
Another excellent quote from Bull Moose:
Of course, the truth is that it was the President that determined the timing of this war. If there wasn't enough equipment before the war, the President could have delayed the start at the recommendation of his Secretary of Defense. It is not as if we were facing a Pearl Harbor situation. And if we are truly at war, why doesn't the President take extraordinary measures as FDR did during the second world war and force the manufacturers to turn out the necessary vehicles to ensure our troops' safety?
Oh no, Mr. Moose. Don't you see it's international organizations like the UN, and the terrible opposition of the EU that has prevented our troops from getting the proper equipment? If these lilly-livered peaceniks handn't opposed the war, none of these problems would have ever taken place!
If you haven't taken a look at Bull Moose yet, I suggest you do. All regular Warsaw-Stationers should have taken a look at Talking Points Memo by now, as well as Andrew Sullivan and Redneck's Revenge.
Breaking up is hard to do
According to this Friday's lead article on EU Business Online, when it comes to the transatlantic relationship, Bush has finally come to his senses.
A cheap dollar can't do it all to close the trade deficit.
The Economist has an interesting article on the dollar's decline as the world's reserve currency.
As long as I've been here, I've calculated złoty's to dollars at a rate of approximately 4 to 1. One złoty was always worth about one quarter.
Friday, the dollar closed at 3.1466 złoty.
No pass no play
More on keeping Rummy, from Bull Moose:
Despite the mass exodus, the incompetent one remains -Rummy. All that happened on his watch was an abysmal post-war plan and a prison scandal. This confirms that the only ones held accountable in this Administration are welfare mothers and struggling third grade students. For them, standards and accountability apply. For Rumsfeld, he is just passed along to the next grade (or term) regardless of his performance.
A moral leader?
Andrew Sullivan sees a culture of abuse in the US military-- a direct result of the Bush administration's ends-justify-the-means policy.
And the Bush administration has already made it absolutely clear that no one of any consequence will be held responsible. They make me ashamed.
Me too. Bewildering that after so many cabinet members have been discarded, Rumsfeld remains safe and sound. A travesty.
Sullvan cites this article as more evidence, as if we needed any.
Please tell me again how this is keeping us safe from terrorism.
Some might argue that such behavior is inevitable during war. My answer: exactly, which is why I and so many others were against it in the first place. We knew this kind of thing was bound to happen (although we perhaps didn't expect it on this scale, and so well documented), while Wolfowitz was harboring hallucinations of rose-petal-strewn streets in the heart of Bagdad.
Four more years. ugh.
Mr Sour
kwaśny (kfash-nih) adj-- sour
Our man Mr Kwaśniewski (all together now--"kfash-NYEV-ski") is getting an awful lot of press lately.
President Bush:
"I informed the prime minister that i had talked this morning to President Kwasniewski of Poland. President Kwasniewski will again lead a delegation which will include a representative of the European Union to the Ukraine to encourage the parties to reject violence and to urge the parties to engage in dialogue toward a political and legal solution to the current crisis. Our common goal is to see the will of the Ukrainian people prevail. The prime minister and I want to thank President Kwasniewski for his efforts, and we wish him all the success."
That's it, Kwaśniewski's plan has been annointed. According to Polish press (Gazeta Wyborcza- Polish article), it's even a five point plan. The report claims that only two points so far are known: First, a pledge from both sides to refrain from violence. Second, to commit to dialog.
But now we know the third:
--WARSAW, Nov 30 (AFP) - Polish President Alexander Kwasniewski on Tuesday called for a new presidential runoff in Ukraine "as soon as possible" if the Ukrainian Supreme Court determines that the recent disputed vote was rigged.--
The right move, I judge. Sounds to me like a call to the Ukrainian Supreme Court to expedite matters and come to a verdict (that the election was indeed rigged), so that negotiations can quickly move on to settling the terms of these new elections. A verdict the other way could lead to dangerous consequences, so I hope the Court follows Kwaśniewski's advice. The longer the protesters on the streets of Kiev (or if you prefer, Kyiv) are left dangling in political limbo, the greater the chances for violence.
Yanukovych is losing traction by the day-- Kuchma's support for fresh elections has put him at an extreme disadvantage. He has offered to make Yushchenko Prime Minister if he becomes President (Yushchenko brushed it off), and has also suggested that if a new vote is held, neither man run, and new candidates be chosen.
He knows he's done for. Yushchenko smells blood. Don't expect him to make any public concessions anytime soon.
Enter Kwaśniewski. He has knowledge of the region, he has Bush's support, and he's known very well by all of the EU's leaders.
--Kwasniweski said his initiative had the support of US President George W. Bush, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the European Union.--
With these relationships, he's managed to push Wałęsa (Va-WEN-sah) out of the picture, and could, depending on the outcome of this crisis, finally achieve his dream of outshining him.
So-
This is Mr Sour's time to shine.
He has the support, the consensus, and the momentum.
And it's probably the most important moment of his presidency.
Let's also note that Poland is finally on the path to playing it's proper role in world politics. Clearly, this nation has carved out a place of real significance in the EU, in the Coalition of the Willing, and in NATO. Poland is not only one of the forces pulling US and EU foreign policy closer together, but it is now the go-to guy on Central and Eastern European diplomacy. A fitting role, and none too dishonorable.
Ukraine latest:
--Threats to Ukraine's unity, meanwhile, seemed to dissipate after the eastern Donetsk region said it would not hold its referendum on self-rule as planned Sunday amid sharp criticism from lawmakers and potential legal action to protect the nation's territorial integrity. The Kharkiv regional legislature also retracted its threat to introduce self-rule.--
Thank God.
And in grammar news. . .
"I fully understand the cattle business. I understand the pressures placed upon Canadian ranchers," he said. But he noted, "There's a bureaucracy involved. I readily concede we've got one."
That's right, bureaucracy is now officially a countable noun. Take notes, it'll be on the test.
|
Abandon the War on Terror?
Yes, That Headline stood out in my RSS reader Gus.
You make some valid points here...yet miss the obvious.
First, In my opinion the "War on Terror" is un-winnable...by our side. We are simply not up to the task. Western Civilization just simply can no longer stomach the acts of violence our ancestors performed to make us the alpha culture to begin with.
Whereas our enemies are not restrained by their own conscience. Islam is on a rather straightforward persistent path to world domination, or destruction of itself and its enemies along the path. Its as unstoppable as Christianity was to the original Roman Empire. Its a war against an idea. Look to Constantinople as a historical example. They simply are more willing to indiscriminately wield their sword than we are. And their message appeals to the have-nots in every society they have engulfed over the last 1300 years.
We have historically been willing to use our technological advantages over our enemies to keep them in check in the past, but no longer. Now they are grasping for our technology to use against use, and we are too self-righteously deluded to stop them. If they had attacked our ancestors the way they have attacked us, they would have received a blood-letting reply of biblical proportions. Organized extermination would have been the order of the day, now our plan is the bribe them into submission.
They simply out-class us in the personal blood-lust department. They will strap a bomb on their child to further their cause. We argue amongst ourselves on the socio-fairness of the composition of our volunteer warriors (dont we Andrew), while half of us look for ways to undermine our current leadership. We are divided and thus on our way to being conquered. At least until their first WMD attack on our society...hopefully we wont have weakened ourselves too much by then to reply in kind.
The "War in Drugs" is not really un-winnable. We just choose not to win it. Extra-judical executions of every American caught with drugs, and Nuking known supplier nations, while mining and militarizing our borders would go a long we toward reducing our drug problem, but those methods dont fit inside our mental picture of who we are as civilized humans.
Similar methods are going to be required to "Win" the "War on Terror" as well. It dont have to be a Nuclear solution, but we are too cowardly to use the alternative method...which is to point blank put a bullet into every brain suspected of harboring ill will towards our society.
Genghis Khan was able to keep his Islamic enemies at bay by leaving nothing but a mountain of skulls in every Islamic city he visited. They remember how effective his methods were, and correctly see us as the cultural pussies that we are.
.
.
.
Your observation of the Democratic Party needing to appear more "Manly" on national security issues is spot on. Most people that voted Red did not do so because Jerry Falwell told them to. They did so because the "Blue" alternative was too weak on security to trust with their families future. If there were more Zell Miller type Blue candidates they would fair better in national elections. Problem is Gus, its just fundamentally against the nature of the Dem's liberal base to show true courage in the face of enemy aggression. No "Brave" candidate could get nominated. They would have to go against every tenet in their being to even project an image of bravery. They would come off looking like John Kerry when he pretended he was going to aggressively wage the war on terror if elected. America can detect a pretentious life-long coward when they see one.
I dont know how old you are Gus, but Jimmy Carter made us all feel like cowards by his unwillingness to respond to Iranian aggression, the Right is still riding a wave of courage and pride Reagan projected. That is not gonna be overcome by Democrats talking tough, we are going to have to see it to believe it.
I am not suggesting YOU are a coward Gus, but you have thrown your political preferences in with a group of pathological political pussies, and they cant be anything they are not. Dont get your hopes up.
Of course YOU could always grow more enlightened with time.
"Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain." ~ Winston Churchill
There is a lot of truth in that dude. I am living proof.
First, In my opinion the "War on Terror" is un-winnable...by our side. We are simply not up to the task. Western Civilization just simply can no longer stomach the acts of violence our ancestors performed to make us the alpha culture to begin with.
Have you ever read any Nietzsche?
I'm afraid we'll never see eye-to-eye on this issue, since it seems to me that your entire worldview is framed by the very "war on terror" mindset that Bowers is talking about:
[T]he need for continuing escalation of the size and influence of the military industrial complex; a simplistic conceptualization of identity revolving primarily around the notion of a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West; a view that threats can only be countered and tamed through the use of force; justification of any United States military action overseas, whether unilateral or pre-emptive.
The point is that these are not beliefs that Dems should aspire to, but ones we have to refute without looking like "pathological pussies." Not impossible.
If there were more Zell Miller type Blue candidates they would fair better in national elections.
Zell Miller makes me shudder with disgust. He equates criticism of the war with hatred of the country. If I had a dime for every time he accused the Democrats of hating America. . . well, I'd have a lot of dimes. I'm tired of being accused of hating my country because I disagree with the direction her leader is taking us.
It's precisely because I love her that I want to see someone take proper care of her -- Where conservatives and liberals disagree is whether that's happening or not, and how to do it. Zell Miller is incapable of making that distinction.
Problem is Gus, its just fundamentally against the nature of the Dem's liberal base to show true courage in the face of enemy aggression.
That's changing. As the election battles get tougher, liberals are getting braver about their views. Unfortunately, they're getting angrier too -- and showing it. I don't know if that's going to attract many votes.
I'm being drawn more and more towards the DLC side of the party simply because they take a rational, clearheaded view of the situation. Those to the farther left have been doing a lot of ranting and flailing about, but offer little in terms of concrete, practical solutions.
Jimmy Carter made us all feel like cowards by his unwillingness to respond to Iranian aggression.
But he kept the peace. No American soldiers died, and the hostages were released. For that, and for sticking to his belief that problems could be solved without resorting to violence, he paid the ultimate political price -- damn brave if you ask me.
Of course YOU could always grow more enlightened with time.
Those who know me would dispute that. I don't think there's any hope of me ever being enlightened.
"Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain." ~ Winston Churchill.
I've heard that many times before, but usually referred to in an economic context. Still, I know plenty of smart, old liberals.
I'm somwhere in the middle of that range, and as I age my views keep changing, both to the more conservative (if you think I'm socialist now. . .), and to the more liberal (I used to believe in the death penalty. No longer).
I try to keep my mind open, but I have a hard time seeing how I can ever be convinced that using the most brutal methods to wipe a civilization off the face of the planet because a few members of that civilization hold extreme views that put me in danger is a good way to keep me and my family safe.
Pretty cowardly. I will never be so terrorized.
That's what the "war on terror" is really about. It's about creating fear of a world that is inherently and will always be dangerous. Paralyzing our minds into support for wars of revenge and eliminating our own civil liberties because we believe it will make us safer. It will not.
I'm not saying you're a coward either, Red, but you've thrown your political preferences in with a group of pathological fearmongers who are so frightened of the world themselves that they're willing to steal our civil liberties, violate international law, and wreck our economy so that they can feel safe. And they'll just keep finding new enemies.
Now that's scared.
It was only a matter of time
Only the blind
Hey, the "cost of the war" has just went down by 3 billion dollars.
Your anti-war propaganda counter said 150 billion yesterday, now it has gone back to 147 billion.
I guess we must have sold some of that Iraqi oil we started this war for. If we are stealing 3 billion dollars worth a day, we can end up making a profit on this thing in a couple more months.
Interesting. Thanks for letting me know. I will investigate.
I just got back in to Warsaw Station 5 minutes ago. I'm a day late and without my luggage, so incidentally, I'd like to take this opportunity to tell all Warsaw Station readers to never, ever take Northwest Airlines.
I condemn them in the "strongest possible terms."
The strongest possible.
The belligerent tone of your comment was not lost on me, Red, and I'm always up for an argument. But at the moment Gustav wants to use all his energy to rip NWA a new asshole. Perhaps another day.
I guess we must have sold some of that Iraqi oil we started this war for. If we are stealing 3 billion dollars worth a day, we can end up making a profit on this thing in a couple more months.
Wrong again Red. Seems the people over at National Priorities Project were just being nice. They've recalculated based on the government's own estimates and decided to discount interest. Generous if you ask me.
Currently, the Cost of War calculator is set to reach $152 billion at the end of January 2005. This amount is based on the National Priorities Project analysis of the three requests made by the Bush Administration for funding for the Iraq War, and what Congress actually allocated. The most recent request passed by Congress was for an additional $25 billion which was intended to pay for the costs through the end of the calendar year(approximately). The Bush Administration is expected to request another sum of money in January or early February to continue funding through fiscal year 2005. We will update the counter after such request has been made and more information revealed about the costs of war. For more information, please see the NPP publication, 'Cost to taxpayers of new $25 billion war request.'
In the original calculations, interest costs were included, since the government is running a deficit. They are not included in the current Cost of War calculations, however. For those interested in figuring the cost of the war in Iraq, including interest, they can take the current cost as displayed on our calculator and add 40% (so that if the Cost of War calculator lists the cost as $100 billion, the true cost, after 10 years of repaying the debt, would be about $140 billion).
At the moment I'm writing this, the counter is at approximately 147,471,500,000.
At 40% interest, that's 206,460,100,000 -- if we manage to pay it off in 10 years.
Since writing that, it's now up to over 147,471,800,000 -- hard to keep up with.
Good to know we're not being stingy. 35 million is 2.37 percent of the number directly above.
$35 million is the equivalent of what the U.S. spends in Iraq in 4 hours.
Sorry, math was never my strong suit.
That's .0237%, not 2.37%.
Really. I thought it was because the counter was fast approaching 152 Billion, and after it did that it would cease to be a novel advertisement on liberal minded blogs. I thought it was programmed to reach 152 after the election. But now that Congress has not authorized more the creators of the propaganda tool needed an excuse to reset it, because if it stops at 152 they will look like the fools the are. I bet it did not start low to begin with.
I mean it cant exceed 152 Billion yet, can it. So lets make up some lame ass excuse on why we reset it, so people wont delete it from their blog templates, and we will continue to get clicked on, and have some more liberal minded sheep visit our website, where we can expose them to our asinine POVs that cant conceive of any reason any war would ever be justified.
I guess I really was wrong again..huh.
Skewed point of views, yes.
That we could send, for example, 19,533,513 kids to head start instead of fighting a war in which the rational has changed half a dozen times, puts me and my family in more danger than before it started, drains our budget, burdens our children with debt, and is highly unlikely to achieve the now stated goal of producing democracy in Iraq is so skewed.
War is never justified?
Must I remind you again where I live?
THIS WAR is not justified.
But perhaps you're right. I'm awful fond of this calculator:
http://www.projectbillboard.org/
What's that? It's over 152,000,000,000?
Somehow the audaciousness of the even higher numbers still conveys the insanity of the waste.
A much more lonely fight
Let Freedom Ring
Open thread
I've heard about that one. I'll try to pick it up.
Merry Chistmas to you too Andrew, and to all the WS crew.
RE: Kerik here.
Josh Marshall on the drop in support for the war in Iraq here.
The Washington Post article he refers to (if you have an account) here.
Not just about intel anymore
Apparently, you dont seem to want to admit the danger our enemies pose to our way of life, and our children's future security.
If we try to impose our self-righteous politically correct rules of engagement on the men we have sent into the enemy's territory, WE WILL LOSE.Is that what you want? Does your desire to see Bush fail override your desire for victory?
All those rules of civilized warfare mean nothing but a sign of cultural weakness to this religiously motivated enemy.
If you are harboring any ideas that we are going to win this war by being the only side to follow Geneva Convention Rules, you are placing an unfair burden on our soldiers.
If we have to torture a 10 year old female Iraqi to get her to point out where Daddy keeps the RPG, I whole heartily support it. If we have to publicly execute every tribal leader in the Sunni Triangle till we get a leader that is willing to work with us on providing his people Freedom and Democracy, I hope we do so without hesitation. I volunteer to be the trigger man.
These people dont fear us, because they know we wont allow ourselves to use the same effective interrogation methods they have used on each other for a millennia.
This aint some Political movement we are at war with...its a billion religiously brainwashed minds that harbor death wishes upon our children. Your desires that we can defeat these idiots without breaking our self-inflicted rules of weakness is un-realistic and only prolongs the conflict, or leaves us with no choice but committing large scale genocide or surrendering.
I wish everyone that was worried about us violating the Muslims civil / human rights would make a pilgrimage from Afghanistan to Mecca, and see how much regard they have for your rules or your life.
Yes Andrew, I figured I would throw in a strawman quote, so you could justify ignoring everything else.
I see it is working as intended.
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
--Just something that came to mind.
All those rules of civilized warfare mean nothing but a sign of cultural weakness to this religiously motivated enemy.
--And not following them is a sign of barbarity that alienates allies, stifles diplomacy, and keeps us from winning hearts and minds. Torture is not going to change the minds of those who have already decided to attack us. But conducting an occupation with a human-rights record that is beyond reproach will show that we mean what we say when we tell them we come to help them.
Victory at the expense of fundamental human rights is no victory. There is no glory without honor.
Following the rules of "civilized warfare" (ha!) will not cause us to lose.
Your argument that since our enemies are not adhering to the Geneva Conventions, we must throw them out the window in order to win, just doesn't hold water.
We can win, and do it right, because in the end the two are one in the same.
If we kill all the terrorists at the cost of our reputation as a country which respects human rights (not to mention the rule of law), then what have we won?
A: A whole lotta martyrs for Iraqi kids to idolize, and in whose footsteps they will yearn to follow.
You can see what I mean hereKILLING ALL THE TERRORISTS IS NOT THE OBJECTIVE.
Because it is impossible. And because, while threatening us all with physical harm, terrorism does not pose an "existential threat to our civilization".
But it does pose a threat to the systems and methods of protecting the values and liberties that we hold dear. Not directly, but indirectly -- by causing us to become so frightened that we willingly give up those liberties and sacrifice those values.
And finally, there's the very simple argument that when tortured, a human will often say anything to make the torture stop. In such circumstances, your 10 year old may tell us that daddy is hiding the RPG in the potato cellar -- but only because she thinks that's what you want to hear. Perhaps she really doesn't know where he keeps it.
If he has one at all.
Too high a cost for our credibility.
What a waste.
Forgot to add that period after the hyperlink.
Damn.
Well Gus, if you dont seem to have any problem with your liberal buddy personally attacking me on your threads, I guess I will defend myself in kind.
You are an extremist, and just like the extremists on the other side, your argument is based on hate..
.
No, your just a weenie. My argument is based on logic. Your argument is based on transposing our cultural values onto a society where they have no value.
You have more in common with Al Qaeda than almost any American..
.
Maybe so, but you have more in common with a worthless UN, that stand aside and lets genocide happen in Rwanda and the Sudan, because responding with force is against the rules. If you were in charge of my countries security we would be fucked.
You just keep harboring asinine thoughts that peace with these religiously brainwashed idiots can be negotiated, and when you see that mushroom cloud over the long beach port, come runnin to one of us barbarians to see if we can protect you from the real world.
Cant you go in and edit your own comments here Gus.
You're right Red.
Andrew, the rule is attack the politics, not the person. Let's keep things civil. I appreciate Red's honesty. Words like extremist and weenie are allowed. Calling each other terrorists is not. Red's arguments are assailable enough, no need for us to resort to inflamatory comments.
Red has quite a bit in common with us. For example, he's a football fan, like you and me. And, (in my opinion, surprisingly for a Texas man) he is also a hockey fan. That gives him serious points in my book.
Far as I can tell, he works hard (although he has an awful lot of time for posting on his blog!), and wants the best for his family. That gives him some more things in common with you and me.
He's also fairly libertarian when it comes to issues like gay rights and church and state-- something Al Qaida would never abide.
But, as you can see, he of course can defend himself.
Unfortunately, I can't (or don't know how to) revise my comments. There's no edit function. The only way for me to correct mistakes is to delete the comment and write it again (or go through the ritual of copying and pasting from the blog and adding the tags again).
-- Too much work for a comment.
As is obvious, the blog is in a constant state of renovation. I'm now convinced that I need a new comments system, and I will add one, but that will have to wait until after the holidays.
Gustav flies to Detroit tomorrow. Fog in Warsaw may hamper plans, but I am absolutely determined to watch at least some college football this year. It's bad enough that I'll miss the Rose Bowl (Go Blue).
Oh man, Thats the best thing about having your own blog dude. Almost every one of my comments at my blog has been revised several times, when I later think of refinements.
I cant tell you how many times I wished I could have retracted my "initial response" at the Command Post.
And I seem to be a much better speller when I have editing privileges. ;-)
But you have just made a blogging mistake in my opinion by siding with one of your commentators in an argument between commentators. These are your threads, and you are the king here, but over-policing the threads is what caused the Command Post to go from an average of over a hundred comments per thread to an average of zero comments per thread. Nobody likes to be censured. Thats why I let my threads police themselves. It might offend a commenter to be attacked on my threads, but at least I didn't limit their options to express themselves.
You will also notice that only 2 of the top 25 trafficked blogs allow comments. Because they either don't care what their readers think, or they don't want to constantly police their threads.
.
.
.
I am an even rarer bird in that I actually played youth ice hockey in Dallas in the 70s, way before Hockey was cool in Texas. My coach was Moe L'Abbe who played for the former CHL Dallas Blackhawks.
Man, I am glad some of you folks aren't in charge of United States security. Let me give you an example of something that just happened Saturday night. An employee of mine and his wife were driving past 'bar row' on Main Street, when he saw one of our customers (recognized his convertible), a friend of mine, getting the piss beat out of him by four guys while he was trapped in his car, with the top down. He told his wife to stop the car. She didn't want him to get involved and said everything she could to stop him from getting involved. He jumped out of the car and started running across the street, taking his coat off and yelling at the attackers. They looked up and saw him, an African American giant, that stands about 6'7", and a physique that would allow him to play tackle for about any pro football team, and took off running. My friend in the car only knew that the beating had stopped, backed his car out and took off. My employee told me about it Monday morning, so I called my friend to see what had happened. My friend, by the way is a pacifist. Doesn't cause any trouble, period. He said he was blindsided while sitting in the car, and the 4 men beat on him, telling him that he didn't know who he was messin' with.??????
I don't know what the word limit is here, so I'm going to post this and then continue.
NoParty
NoParty (cont.)
Let's put this into perspective. My friend was being attacked by 4 men, whom he'd done nothing to provoke. They were beating him for reasons out of his control. Being a pacifist, he not only couldn't fight back, he wouldn't. He told me he thought they were going to kill him, and that's how my employee described the beating he witnessed. These 4 cowards were beating a nice person and just having a gay old time...until someone that intimidated them came along and had the balls to try to help someone that was in terrible trouble. Since they were nothing but frikin' cowards, they ran at the sight of him. What have we learned here? If you don't fight back, when attacked, you will probably die, unless someone that will fight comes to your aid. If someone doesn't have the balls to stand up to cowards, or wants to just 'look the other way', cowards will continue to do what they do. I know my employee, and if they hadn't run away and instead wanted to try to fight him, rather than mess with that, he would have shot all 4 of them dead, and just dealt with the outcome. Lucky for him, and them, they ran. Unluckily, they didn't learn anything. If they had stayed and fought, there wouldn't be any future problem from these thugs. If you want to survive in this world, you had better be able to intimidate your aggressors by them knowing you will bring down the wrath of hell on them. If you've got to go to a knife fight, TAKE A GUN. Losing is not an option.
Now, are you guys going to sit around and talk about how my employee should have been more sensitive to the 4 coward's feelings? Or how bad he is for involving himself in someone else's business? Or dog him for potentially being ready to do WHATEVER NECESSARY to save an innocent victim? Just curious.
NoParty
BTW, my friend came by the office today. He looked like hamburger and said he looked good now, compared to how he looked Sunday. He was extremely grateful. He brought a bottle of Crown for my employee and couldn't thank him enough.
What does this tell us? It's ok to be a pacifist, but shut the f**k up and be grateful when someone that isn't, takes care of your heavy work. Thanking them, is the proper thing to do. So, instead of dogging the US, George Bush, and Don Rumsfield, with every word you type, why don't you just thank them and dog the mf'rs that cut innocent people's heads off for your viewing pleasure on TV and blow up innocent people that are just guilty of wanting to be free?
NoParty
Hey! NP! Glad you came, you're on my turf now.
First of all, don't worry, no character limit (as far as I can tell, and Red can tell you that I've tested the boundaries). This is just the standard blogger comment setup, although I'll switch to something more new-fangled over the holidays. After starting blogging in just September, this hobby has become so addictive that I'll probably be forced to start spending money on it.
For your first post here, it's a great one. I think this is the first time EVER where I don't disagree with a thing you've said NP. But I don't know where your conclusions are coming from. I think the example you give is a great demonstration of my point.
I'm no pacifist, and being against torture doesn't make me one. It makes me a decent human being (no offense).
I'm glad your employee did what he did. And I agree that force (or the threat of it) is sometimes (or often) needed to back up diplomacy, and also to make sure the rules are followed.
So let's take your example one step further.
With bombs dropping on civilians, and pictures circulating of army officers siccing dogs on defenseless Iraqis, -- as defenseless as your friend/customer was -- it is the US which looks like the four cowards(Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Condi?) beating the crap out of the pacifist to the rest of the world.
They would love to get their hands on that convertible, just like the US would love to get their hands on that oil. See where I'm goin' with this?
The cowards keep making inflamatory remarks like: "you don't know who your messin' with." Sounds familiar. I bet some of them also said "bring it on" and "you can run but you can't hide."
It's fun beating up on defenseless folks, especially when you get to say cool cowboy shit like that.
Unfortunately for the Iraqis, no big black guy is gonna come save the day. The UN is the best hope they've got, and they're pacifists! Maybe we should outfit the UN with a real army, so that they can flex their muscles and intimidate those cowardly countries who don't want to respect human rights.
Of course, I don't believe that the UN should start a war with the US, but you see what I mean. To the rest of the world (and to me!), torturing, abusing human rights, skirting the Geneva conventions -- these things don't make us the hero, they make us the villain.
I believe that GWB and co., as well as our troops have the best intentions. I believe that Iraq MUST be made democratic and secure.
But I'm from the states. I'm much easier to convince than you r average world citizen. You know what the world thinks when they see those pictures? They see Spanish Inquisition, Russian Czars, Oppression in Tibet, Nazis.
Cowards, every one. I don't like my country being included in that group.
Which is why I think it's good that soldiers aren't allowed to torture.
And Rummy wants to make it allowed. That's breaking the rules.
Think your employee could take on a 72-year-old?
Gus says:So let's take your example one step further.
*Okydoky.
Gus says: With bombs dropping on civilians,
*Our 'WELL TARGETED BOMBS' don't compare with flying jumbo jets full of passengers into skyscrapers, the Pentagon, or the White House....
Gus says: and pictures circulating of army officers siccing dogs on defenseless Iraqis,
*Dogs barking at'Innocent' Iraqis??? ohhhhh! And pictures of INNOCENT folks getting their heads cut off with a dull knife while they gurgled in terror and car suicide bombs targeted ONLY at innocent women and children. If we were ANYTHING like THEM, this war would have been over in 48 hours and we could be back to watching 'Andy of Mayberry', instead of the beheadings.
Gus says: -- as defenseless as your friend/customer was -- it is the US which looks like the four cowards(Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Condi?) beating the crap out of the pacifist to the rest of the world.
*I call BS. How can you manipulate the FACTS to make us cleaning up Islamic fundamentalism at it's roots, to being cowards? Cowards are the ones that NOW hide from us and wear masks as they cut some kid's father's head off with a dull knife in Technacolor for YOUR viewing pleasure. The same ones that recruit grade school kids to wear bombs and convince them to kill themselves and as many innocents as they can, for the handsome sum of $10. The same ones that target for death, peace loving brothers and sisters that only wish to help lift their country out of a 3,000 year old clogged up toilet.
Gus says: They would love to get their hands on that convertible, just like the US would love to get their hands on that oil. See where I'm goin' with this?
*They weren't after his T-Bird. They wanted to kill him for reasons unknown to him. (we have a theory, but it's too long to go into. The point being, the guy did nothing to deserve it or provoke it). You goddabeshittinme. Are you one of those "it's all about the oil" conspiracy freaks? I thought most of them moved on to other theories when they were PROVEN WRONG. Get over it man. We aren't taking their oil.
Gus says: The cowards keep making inflamatory remarks like: "you don't know who your messin' with." Sounds familiar. I bet some of them also said "bring it on" and "you can run but you can't hide."
*No, that would be my employee YELLING that, coming to my friend's aid.
Gus says: It's fun beating up on defenseless folks, especially when you get to say cool cowboy shit like that.
*Maybe you think so Gus. I don't usually associate with folks like that. What do you suppose the mf'rs were saying as they flew those jumbo jets into the Twin Towers? Maybe "Yaaaaahhhhh Hooooooooo!" Whatta ya think?
Gus says: Unfortunately for the Iraqis, no big black guy is gonna come save the day.
*No, actually a smaller fellow. He lives in the White House.....and about 150,000 guys just like him.
Gus says: The UN is the best hope they've got, and they're pacifists!
*Yes, the UN is the best hope they've got.....if 'they' is the terrorists. Maybe all those people in the mass graves were impressed by the UN all the way up to the bullet exploding the back of their heads or as they took their last breath of dirt and sand after being buried alive. I don't know...whatta ya think?
Gus says: Maybe we should outfit the UN with a real army, so that they can flex their muscles and intimidate those cowardly countries who don't want to respect human rights.
The UN can't even police themselves, much less areas where there is VIOLENCE happening. I'm sure the liberals would love for us to turn our military over to the UN. They'd like to turn our country over to the UN.
Gus says: Of course, I don't believe that the UN should start a war with the US, but you see what I mean. To the rest of the world (and to me!), torturing, abusing human rights, skirting the Geneva conventions -- these things don't make us the hero, they make us the villain.
*No, we will never be the VILLAN. That position is held firmly by the Islamic fundamentalists and has been for decades....in fact, you could say thousands of years. We are the 'fixit men'. We're going to fix this while all the cowards can wring their hands and talk about what savages WE are. Many of whom will only be alive or able to voice their opinion because of us.
Gus says: I believe that GWB and co., as well as our troops have the best intentions. I believe that Iraq MUST be made democratic and secure.
*Gawd damn. I didn't think we'd agree on anything.
Gus says: But I'm from the states. I'm much easier to convince than you r average world citizen. You know what the world thinks when they see those pictures? They see Spanish Inquisition, Russian Czars, Oppression in Tibet, Nazis.
*Which pictures do you refer to? Masked men with dull knives cutting off innocent people's heads or the pictures of our troops burned alive, drug through the streets and then hung from a bridge for your viewing intertainment? Or are you talking about the pictures of the guy that was just prior trying to kill our troops, with a pair of panties over his head? Or the same guy with a restrained dog barking at him? Or the picture of the troop sharing candy with the young Iraqi boy? Or the picture of the troop with his leg and arm blown off, simply because he was man enough to stand up for defenseless people and say "ENOUGH!"? Which pictures?
Gus says: Cowards, every one. I don't like my country being included in that group.
*If you're referring to the US, you need to get a better understanding of the word 'coward'. You also need to get a better perspective on reality.
Gus says: Which is why I think it's good that soldiers aren't allowed to torture.
*Hmmmmm. Maybe you better talk to our soldiers that were REALLY tortured.
Gus says: And Rummy wants to make it allowed. That's breaking the rules.
*You don't know what you're talking about. You should spend more time supporting your country, than trying to undermine it. Period.
Gus says: Think your employee could take on a 72-year-old?
*I didn't think you were that old, Gus.
NoParty
Andrew said...
Nice little story NoParty.
I just wonder, who are the thugs and who are the innocent in Iraq?
*Let's see...This is a difficult question...Hmmmm...I guess the thugs would be the masked ones cutting heads off on tv with a dull knife. Maybe the ones that recruit children to blow themselves up or the ones intentionally blowing up innocent women and children, and the ones that kill anyone wishing to help their fellow man live in freedom. That would leave the innocent ones being the ones that want to live in freedom and peace and the ones that are giving their lives to help those innocent people to live in freedom and peace.
Andrew says: This is a rich man's war being faught by the poor.
*What kind of 'Evergreen College Bullshit' is that? Do you smoke a lot of pot or spend much time in peace marches?
Andrew says: Just like in our country's revolution from the British, the rich are orchestrating a war, fanning the sparks of pride in our country's lower classes and sending them off to fight in order to maintain the status quo and thereby increase the wealth of the rich.
*Wow. You are one oxygen starved, conspiracy paranoid, little terrorist appeaser.
Andrew says: No, I am not much of a patriot.
*Not very intelligent, either. No offense.
Andrew says: As for censuring your blog, Gus, I will refrain from calling people terrorists no matter how terroristically they speak, and I don't mind being called a weenie. hehe
* hehe? Definitely a weenie.
Andrew says: As for Dave B's comment, it looks like we have a moderate in our midst!
*That must be pretty rare around here.
Had a nice visit, Gus. I'll see ya at RT's.
NoParty
OK, I can see this is going to be an ideological war of attrition with all you long winded combatants, but I will be brief.
Weenie said:"I stand by my assertion that this is a war to benefit the rich."
Thats why you lost the election. Most people can examine the facts without being blinded by their own political propaganda. Can you provide me with some evidence that the profits from Iraqi oil are going into Texas, or are you just talkin out your ass because you like the way it smells. I seem to recall that Iraq oil profits are going into their infrastructure instead of Saddam's swiss bank account for the first time in decades. The Terrorist are targeting the oil pipelines, not to keep money out of Texas, but to keep the Iraqi people from benefiting from the proceeds. Your right when you say its about the oil but its our enemies that are stealing from the Iraqi people not OUR fine president.
Weenie said: "This is a rich man's war being fought by the poor. Just like in our country's revolution from the British, the rich are orchestrating a war, fanning the sparks of pride in our country's lower classes and sending them off to fight in order to maintain the status quo and thereby increase the wealth of the rich."
What are you suggesting, that these fine men that have volunteered to defend your weenie butt are a bunch of idiots for doing so. That some evil republican has brainwashed them into being patriotic when you refuse to be. That another reason you lost. Most Americans are not as hateful and disrespectful to our servicemen as you. They are over there dying to bring freedom and democracy to a society that has been oppressed and you claim they are there to "Maintain the Status quo". Brilliant observation of the facts there dude. Reality must scare you.
Weenie admitted: "No, I am not much of a patriot."
Well here we find something to agree on. But no doubt you enjoy the fruits of freedom that some stupid patriot from the past who had someone fanning the sparks of pride in our country's lower classes and sending them off to fight in order to maintain the freedom you abuse now. What have we done to deserve our freedom?
Gus, if we got to revert to civil war here to allow ourselves to do what its going to take to assure our security in the future, I will take my Wingman over yours any day. If you know what I mean.
Bogey at 11 o'clock, RT. :)
ANDREW SAYS: If anything I think people from my point of view respect members of our military more than people on your side.
*Andrew, Andrew, Andrew....This is way too easy. That comment, if it weren't such a serious subject, would be laughable. What have you done for the troops since the beginning of the war? BESIDES trying to undermine every element of their mission and their leaders?
ANDREW SAYS, "They are over there getting killed and injured for poor reasons and we want that to end! (Posts on your site make me think you too sometimes want it to end.)
*'Poor reasons' to the guy that can't see past his nose. If by now, you still can't see the extreme importance of our mission in Iraq and the rest of the WoT, I honestly don't think there is any hope for a sudden influx of comprehension. RT might like for the war to end alright, but in a different way than you and the rest of your flock.
ANDREW SAYS, "They are brave, they have a tough job and I respect them and their families.
But I don't think what they are doing now is protecting me. This occupation has more to do with imperialism than our safety.
*I refer back to not being able to see past the end of your nose.
ANDREW SAYS, "And yes, our soldiers are volunteers, but very many of them are forced to join out of economic neccesity. Your side likes to talk about the great opportunity in this country, but for the poor and uneducated the opportunities can be very limited. The military looks like an attractive opportunity to someone with few choices.
*You make it sound like you consider our troops as 'unqualified' to do any REAL job. You need to get out and meet some of our troops. Don't expect the type of guys you went to Evergreen with. These are sharp, intelligent, hard working individuals that are a compliment to our country when they visit other countries. Did you know you have to meet certain criteria to get in? They don't just go down to the homeless soup line and recruit. Our troops are made out of something you wouldn't understand. You would never be a troop, nor would they let you.
ANDREW SAYS, "I don't want to be part of any civil war, and I'm not trying to be anyone's Wingman. I admit, I might be a very poor one."
*It's good that you can admit that.
ANDREW THINKS THIS IS A FAMOUS QUOTE FROM A REGGAE MUSICIAN, "Judge not, until you judge yourself"
-Bob Marley
*Well, a least now we know who you look up to for guidance. What's that burning smell?....hmmm. Hey, here's some intelligent quotes by Margaret Thatcher, you may not have heard....The last one is my favorite and applies heavily to you guys.
"...Conservatives have excellent credentials to speak about human rights. By our efforts, and with precious little help from self-styled liberals, we were largely responsible for securing liberty for a substantial share of the world's population and defending it for most of the rest."
"Major international interventions are doomed unless the US is directly or indirectly involved. But if American politicians, officials and servicemen are to be put at risk of arrest and prosecution, the United States will be most reluctant to act in order to curb aggression or prevent genocide. So the effect of the court may well be to diminish, not increase, the numbers of (in the words of the UN Secretary General) 'innocents of distant wars and conflicts'."
My favorite, which HITS YOU GUYS RIGHT ON THE NOSE:
Lady Thatcher warned that America and Britain faced “a pervasive culture of anti-Westernism" that needed to be challenged. "There are too many people who imagine that there is something sophisticated about always believing the best of those who hate your country, and the worst of those who defend it."
NoParty
Wow, I missed a lot on the flight. I'll try to catch up with just one comment.
First off, welcome Dave.
Ok, so, as far as the wingman issue goes, you can have yours Red. I think Andrew made some excellent points about some (not all) of our troops being forced into the sevice due to economic circumstances. And I agree with him on this: The idea that this war is making me or my family safer is laughable.
No, NP, I'm not really one of those folks who believe this is a war for oil. If you want to benefit the oil industry, you keep the flow of oil stable, you don't go around causing international and diplomatic havoc in every oil-exporting country, as this president has done. But it sure looks like it to the international community, as well as the Muslim world. And to win, it's them we have to convince.
Please don't confuse the word "defenseless" with "innocent". I'm not saying anybody in those pictures was innocent. But they were captured, and they were defenseless, and while those dogs were restrained, there is plenty of blood on the ground in that picture to show that they hadn't been restrained for long. As much as they don't deserve it, the human rights of prisoners must also be respected, because "that's the way we operate".
We cannot win this war by being the same as the terrorists.
The beheadings, the horrible murders, the maimings and all else that the terrorists are responsible for make me angry too, NP, and I want them to stop. But I don't let my anger cloud my reason. An eye for an eye will get us nowhere but blind.
And yes, perhaps dropping down to their level will help us to defeat these particular terrorists.
But I'm deathly afraid of the US making the same mistake as the Israelis, who reacted to terrorism with such indiscriminate brutality that instead of stopping terrorism, they prolonged it.
We can't afford to make even one image mistake. We can't afford to look as bad as the terrorists. We can't afford to give the Muslim world any more reasons to justify their hate for us.
Our record must be impeccable.
And while I admit that our troops have served honorably, and made tremendous sacrifices to win this war, when it comes to the Abu Ghraib incident, I cannot say that their behavior has been impeccable.
But I don't believe that's their fault. I believe it's the fault of the leadership who create an atmosphere of rewarding failure.
It's not about what we're doing -- bringing democracy to Iraq is a noble goal, and I hope the president succeeds, not only because it's good to do so, but because he's now created a situation where failure would be disastrous.
It's about how it looks. Red and NP want the US to fight exactly the same as the terrorists. Perhaps they would like to see our military beheading the terrorists and then sending the tapes to Al-Jazeera.
That would show those Muslims, eh?
Those images have not weakened our will, it has made us even more determined, and has convinced us even more of our right-ness.
And it would do exactly the same in the Muslim world. They would become even more convinced that the US is an evil empire sent to destroy their culture.
If we want to win, we have to be credible. In order to be credible, we have to follow the rules that we'll expect the Iraqis to follow as responsible members of the international community.
Do as I say, not as I do, doesn't work with anybody.
Those are all noble ass ideas Gus, though if we follow them we will lose.When the British attacked America in the revolutionary war, and the war of 1812, they lost because they were applying their rules of gentlemanly European warfare here, while we were using guerrilla tactics we had learned in our domestic conflicts with the natives. The British would line up across fields and be slaughtered at the hands of our hit & run tactics because they refused to alter their rules of engagement to reflect our ungentlemanly tactic..please note they lost.
Gus: But I'm deathly afraid of the US making the same mistake as the Israelis, who reacted to terrorism with such indiscriminate brutality that instead of stopping terrorism, they prolonged it..
.
The Israeli / Palestinian conflict has been prolonged for exactly the reasons you support. The Palestinians are allowed to violate Geneva Conventions but the Israelis are held to a higher standard. If Israel were to be as indiscriminately brutal as the Arabs, that conflict would be over. But we demand that as a civilized society they take unnecessary casualties to appease our sense of right or wrong.
Now you and your kind are imposing those same rules on America in the Middle East that will keep us from winning, then you set back and bitch about the conflict being prolonged.
Look, imagine you are out somewhere and a guy walks up from behind you and knocks the shit out of you, and you respond by meekly pushing him because you dont want to increase his anger towards you. But them he pulls out a knife and stabs you, and you have a gun in your pocket but you dont allow yourself to use it because you dont want to break any laws, so you meekly push him again, then he takes your gun away from you and shoots you dead. You might not have ever broke any rules, but you are dead because he refused to play by the same rules that were restraining you.
Thats exactly the burden we bestow upon ourselves in the war on terrorism. They indiscriminately attack us, then blend back into the crowd. We know one of those guys in the crowd is the attacker, but we cant tell which one. So we apply our rules to his world and let the entire crowd go because all but one of them is innocent and we cant tell which one. Then he repeats the same tactics tomorrow and we again apply our civilized rules and let him go. He can repeat this indefinitely and WE will incur repeated losses because we are bound by our rules, or we can play by his rules and mow down that whole first crowd to assure we got him.
It may be wrong but I choose the method that keeps more of MY people alive, and prefer to live with the quilt of my actions than die righteous.
Now expand that logic to encompass the entire War on Terror. The Islamic World has learned that they can indiscriminately attack us and we wont respond in kind, so there is no incentive for them to alter their tactics because they are working. When the WTC fell the innocent ones were dancing in the streets in celebration of their brethren's successful act. And we respond like we would if we had been attacked by a large standing Army under the command of a political leader, by massing armor and equipment for a land campaign, will telegraphing our next move. Well those strategies might work against a Uniformed European Army that was prepared to fight us with the same rules of engagement, but they are totally worthless strategies against attackers that plan to blend back into the populace they know we wont attack.
Your whole argument, and our nations current plan, guarantee defeat if we are not willing to alter our rules of engagement to match our enemies. They may make us feel better about ourselves but following our rules plays right into our enemy's strategy....he is counting on it.
I think we should adopt his strategies and tactics and use them against him. I am talking about removing all our troops and just spend the next 20 years giving them a dose of what its like being on the receiving end of indiscriminate bombing. We see a gathering at an Islamic Market...we bomb it from the air. We see a large crowd in Mecca...we cluster bomb it. We see a Suspected underground bunker with gas-centrifuges in it, we bunker bust it. We hear of a Cleric spouting Anti-American Hatred we drop a fuel-air explosive on his Mosque during Friday prayers.
We do this for 20 years, and I bet they start to re-think the wisdom of their strategies.
Now I know thats sounds like Terrorist talk to Andrew, but its really just sound tactics if you dont want to lose. If y'all are determined to piss on a raging uncivilized fire with our current civilized rules, dont be surprised if your civilized D**K gets burned.
Bogey Splashed, returning to base.
'knay mate.
NoParty
We do this for 20 years, and I bet they start to re-think the wisdom of their strategies.I bet they don't. We do this for 20 years, and we've got a terrorist war of attrition on our hands for centuries.
Red, I think we ought to kill people like that guy in your example who knock me over the head. Problem is, there's a group of folks standing on the sidelines that will either help him or us. We've told them that we are innocent victims in this thing, and that we didn't deserve this beating. But when we finish killing him, and turn that gun in our pocket on the crowd, our innocent victim line becomes difficult to believe, don't it?
Ok,Gus....
GUS SAYS, "The idea that this war is making me or my family safer is laughable."
*For someone that sees the world through a straw, I would expect a statement like that. Because you haven't PERSONALY been affected by terrorism, you, like the ostrich with it's head in the sand, feel that there is no problem.
GUS SAYS, "No, NP, I'm not really one of those folks who believe this is a war for oil."
*Ok, I guess it was Andrew that was spewing the " It's all about the Oil...Haliburton....Bush profiting....and all that other proven unaccurate propaganda that has become the buzz words for liberals that can't find the truth if was in their watch pocket and don't want to deal with the truth when they do find it. I'll trust that YOU don't harbor those same idiotic beliefs.
GUS SAYS, "But it sure looks like it to the international community, as well as the Muslim world. And to win, it's them we have to convince."
*And why do they think that way? Because the media, which works against the US, tells them that and their leaders that want to stay in control tell them that. If they put more faith in 'liberal undermining Americans',the media, and their criminal leaders, we're probably just going to have to kill them. Sorry, but it's not our fault, pal.
GUS SAYS, "....while those dogs were restrained, there is plenty of blood on the ground in that picture to show that they hadn't been restrained for long."
*You are jumping to conclusions. There was never any accusations of turning a vicious dog loose on a prisoner. No prisoner has been used for a dog biscut. I think a vicious dog threatening a prisoner is funny..not criminal. When he shit's his pants, it becomes even funnier. Maybe when he gets out, IF he does, he won't want to do ANYTHING to have to be put in a prison again. If you think using an intimidating dog is criminal, I'm afraid you'll need to arrest every K-9 unit in every police force in America.
GUS SAYS, "We cannot win this war by being the same as the terrorists."
*And on the same note, we cannot win this war using standard practices designed for standard warfare. So, GUS, should we just start waving our white flag now?
GUS SAYS, "The beheadings, the horrible murders, the maimings and all else that the terrorists are responsible for make me angry too, NP, and I want them to stop."
*But you have no tactics that will stop it. You do have plenty of time to undermine the folks that are doing something to stop it. You can't have it both ways.
GUS SAYS, "But I don't let my anger cloud my reason."
*Neither do I. I don't spend time being a part of the problem. I'm a problem SOLVER.
GUS SAYS, "An eye for an eye will get us nowhere but blind."
*The way you deal with things, maybe. A winner has the philosophy that it's more like, 'An eye for your life'. I may get a sore eye, or worse yet, lose that eye, but the other guy is dead.
GUS SAYS, "And yes, perhaps dropping down to their level will help us to defeat these particular terrorists."
*It's NEVER "dropping down to their level" once you have been attacked. It becomes 'doing whatever it takes to save troops and destroy the enemy as efficiently as possible'. The messier the better. I want any potential future terrorists to have such a guesome picture in their minds that they will take up basket weaving over fighting.
GUS SAYS, "But I'm deathly afraid of the US making the same mistake as the Israelis, who reacted to terrorism with such indiscriminate brutality that instead of stopping terrorism, they prolonged it."
*Way off target again, Gus. If the Israelis had done it my way, there would be no terrorism in Israel. It's the 'limp wrists' that have kept terrorism alive and well for the Israelis.
GUS SAYS, "We can't afford to make even one image mistake. We can't afford to look as bad as the terrorists. We can't afford to give the Muslim world any more reasons to justify their hate for us."
*Gus, they have been bred to hate us. Who gives a fuk if we piss some of them off. The media, liberals, appeasing countries, and the Islamic leaders are going to make sure they hate us NO MATTER WHAT WE DO. If they want to be free, they can be. If they want to die, we can assist them with that, too.
GUS SAYS, "Our record must be impeccable."
*And it is.
GUS SAYS, "when it comes to the Abu Ghraib incident, I cannot say that their behavior has been impeccable."
*And so how long are you going to beat that dead horse? It would sure piss me off if I knew I got shot dead on the battlefield when I could have wore panties over my head, been humiliated, and barked at by a dog, and maybe even had my titty twisted, before being released to go home alive.
GUS SAYS, "But I don't believe that's their fault. I believe it's the fault of the leadership who create an atmosphere of rewarding failure."
*Yeah, it's Rumsfield's fault..oh yeah, and George Bush's too. Hell, they should have slapped those guy's hands and sent them back to continue with what they were doing....Discouraging some inbreds not to take up radical Islamic causes.
GUS SAYS, "It's not about what we're doing -- bringing democracy to Iraq is a noble goal, and I hope the president succeeds, not only because it's good to do so, but because he's now created a situation where failure would be disastrous."
*Way off base, again, Gus. For Bush to not have done this, would have been 'disasterous'. By now, I don't expect you to understand this. You will never understand this, but you will live among the benefits of it.
GUS SAYS, "It's about how it looks. Red and NP want the US to fight exactly the same as the terrorists. Perhaps they would like to see our military beheading the terrorists and then sending the tapes to Al-Jazeera."
*Way off base, again. I'm not for hiding behind a mask and performing a dull knife beheading for the 9:00 news, a week after airing heart wrenching pleas for mercy, so some kid can see his INNOCENT father dying a horrific death in Technicolor. I'm for squashing the enemy and being as messy as possible about it. I want all those anti-American reporters right on the scene, too. Use them to OUR advantage for once. Reporter, "OH, MY GOD! THE HUMANITY! LOOK WHAT THE COALITION HAS DONE TO THE ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS! I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING SO HORRIBLE! (vomiting)" :)
GUS SAYS, "Those images have not weakened our will, it has made us even more determined, and has convinced us even more of our right-ness."
*You say that, but you spend all of your time trying to make us look like WE'RE in the wrong. Hmmmmmm.
GUS SAYS, "And it would do exactly the same in the Muslim world. They would become even more convinced that the US is an evil empire sent to destroy their culture."
*Why are you so concerned about further convincing the Muslim world of something they are already irreversably convinced of? The ones that are intelligent enough and haven't been permanently brainwashed, know that we are good people. 'Don't mistake our kindness as a sign of weakness.'
GUS SAYS, "If we want to win, we have to be credible."
*We don't have any problem with credibility. George Bush re-established our credibility to the world. It was tough after guys like BC destroyed it. GW pretty much does what he says he's going to do. However, it's not what we say that will eliminate terrorism or win this war, it's the damage we do to Islamic fundamentalists that will win this war.
GUS SAYS, "In order to be credible, we have to follow the rules that we'll expect the Iraqis to follow as responsible members of the international community."
*Gus, we are one of the few credible countries left. If they follow in our footsteps, they'll be fine. It sure would be nice if they didn't have folks like our liberals and our media, to try to fuk up anything positive that they do.
GUS SAYS, "Do as I say, not as I do, doesn't work with anybody."
*I know some guys that participated in the 'SCARED STRAIGHT' program that would beg to differ with you.
NoParty
(sorry, forgot to sign it)
Don't worry about signing NP. I can tell your nonsense anywhere.
Try living abroad or maybe just stepping outside of your little box for a while.
Then you'll see how much brutality convinces folks.
Not one lick.
"Way off base," np. Way off.
NoParty swoopin' in for an easy kill.
****Gustav said...
Don't worry about signing NP. I can tell your nonsense anywhere.****
Nonsense? Ok.
****Try living abroad or maybe just stepping outside of your little box for a while.****
It's the people that live outside my box that seem to be extremely jealous.
****Then you'll see how much brutality convinces folks.****
You see? This is an easy one. We're not the initial brutality. We are the responders. Their brutality doesn't do ANYTHING, but piss us off. That is not good for their health.
****Not one lick.****
Oh, come on. Can a fella get just one?
****"Way off base," np. Way off.****
I think I'm right on target. Right on.
zzzzzzzzzz. Sorry, gotta go.
Is it or isn't it?
Hm. No comments on this one. I think I have my answer.
Well, I will say that I think Poland is approaching the same level of importance here politically as any nation in Europe with the exception of Britain.
Economically I think their influence still lags behind the UK, France, Germany, and Italy and maybe Sweden. But I think no European nation has as much potential for "increased influence" with America in the next century than Poland.
What are the staples of Polish-American trade anyway?
Foreign direct investment from the U.S. dropped for the first time since '89 in 2003: from 8.7 billion to 8.3 -- putting it in third place behind France and the Netherlands. It will probably drop further this year.
Economics is pulling Poland towards Europe. It's placed perfectly -- it can distribute its vast amounts of cheap food to all of Europe (and without tariffs since May) from its very central position. And now, anyone in the old 15 can work here without restrictions (except a residency card), bringing European business closer. Poles can now work in Ireland, Britain and Sweden without restsriction, and in the Netherlands with very few. These countries are benefiting from Polish workers -- they fill needed positions, pay taxes and, because they work for less, keep inflation low. All of this indicates that more EU countries will be anxious, not reluctant to pull down their restrictions before the maximum 7 year period. European telecom companies are eyeing Poland's market greedily, and they stand to make billions if they invade.
Take all of this into account, and consider that U.S. investment is dropping, and the picture for economic ties does not look good.
Most of the business that Poland does with the U.S. has to do with higher-tech things. Pratt and Whitney build fighter engines (including soon the F100 for Poland's own F-16's), Hewlett Packard is set to make a big investment here. Motorola, 3M, and Masterfoods all have a significant presence here.
But as far as I can tell, Poland doesn't export much to the States. Perhaps some "miscellaneous manufactured goods" -- Poland makes some great computer components.
What the US really likes is when Poland IMPORTS their stuff, and it's easy to see why. Watch the airline news come Christmastime/New Year. The national carrier, LOT, has a big decision to make: Boeing's 7E7 or Airbus' A330. The US is offering very generous financing to LOT if they buy Boeing. For LOT, cost is issue #1. It's fighting for its survival. It will really piss the Europeans off though if Poland buys American planes again.
I say again because 2 years ago, the Polish government decided to buy 48 F-16s for the Army. This was a substantial boon for Lockheed Martin, and there were some European governments (who had defense contractors who needed the business), who were none too happy about that. Since then, Lockheed Martin has proceeded to fulfill its offset obligation to the tune of 26% OF 2003's SCHEDULED INVESTMENTS.
Pratt and Whitney's investments of $57.3 millon bring that higher a bit, but the investments would have been made regardless -- P&W has been here for 29 years; and the new jobs here translate into lost jobs in the US
Money talks, so you can understand why some Poles feel like they're getting the silent treatment from their "despotic husband".
Politically, things are much better, I agree. But the visa program has got to change. It's the thorn in the side of American-Polish relations.
And the War in Iraq is becoming less popular. In 2003, 40% of Poles favored Polish involvement. Now, that number is 26%.
And the Poish political debate is turning more towards Europe as well. Issues like: What stance should Poland take on this or that issue in the EU (like Turkey)?, and How should Poland stand up for Ukraine in the EU? (while Turkey has a chance to enter the EU sometime soon, Ukraine has been tossed in a group of "neighbor" countries that includes places like Morocco), are big topics on the political talk shows.
I don't know how many Poles noticed GWB's trust in Kwasniewski to handle Ukraine, but I noticed. It was the right decision, but even more, it showed that Bush had thought that Poland had "grown up".
Unfortunately, the Poles got tired of being treated like children long ago.
But the Poles are a conservative folk, and very Catholic. Suspicion of Islam runs deep, which is why some still support the war effort. On the other hand, even more devout Catholics are against the war, since their hero, Pope John Paul II (incidentally, Gustav used to live on John Paul II street in Warsaw. That was another Warsaw station), says they should be.
Wikipedia on the Polish economy: here.
I got the panorama from e-Warsaw. I work in the Millennium Plaza. Remember where that is? Can you find it in the picture?
The clock -- it's meant to show the time in Warsaw, but I'm afraid it just might show the time of whereever the person who's looking at my site is. So, Andrew, is the clock showing local time or is it 9 hours ahead? Red, it should be about 7 hours ahead of your time (You're in the central time zone, right?-- if you're in Mountain, then it should be 8 hours ahead of you).
Darn, I was afraid of that. Off it goes. Anybody know where I can get a java clock or something that shows only MY time?
The Heartland Strategy
It doesn't look much like a "Heartland" strategy, does it? I hate that big red line from North Dakota all the way down to the Rio Grande.
Does anyone know where I can find a counter that displays how much money our military would costs us if they were not deployed in our defense. I wonder if your counter is counting just the difference between cost of the war, minus the cost to maintain a standing army that is not deployed. I get the feeling that whoever designed it is pushing an anti-war agenda...and not being entirely truthful.
Or how much it cost to maintain a military between wars....what a total waste of money.
Just as I suspected, only half the truth:
This amount is based on the National Priorities Project analysis of the three requests made by the Bush Administration for funding for the war on Iraq, and what Congress actually allocated.As I recall that included funding for upgrading Iraqi Infrastructure too.
Adjusted for inflation WW1 cost 200 billion dollars, so I guess we are getting of light here, in both economic and human costs. Sounds like an excellent job of managing our nations defense need by YOUR elected administration.
Lets talk about how much money we are totally wasting on humanitarian and Foreign aid world wide, how about a counter for that.
I hate that big red line from North Dakota all the way down to the Rio Grande..
.
Apparently we are un-reformable, eh.
BTW: I put that space below an italicized quote by entering 2 periods.
BTW2: I started a new non-political blog. And it came with Blogger comments built-in.
But Halo-Scan has a cool tool to easily replace Blogger comments with Halo-Scans. Let me know if you want more info. Of course halo-scans have that 1000-3000 character limit. But the developer is working on a preview function.
Apparently we are un-reformable, eh?.
I hate that red line because it's there, not the group of states or the people in them. I wish the Dems could find a strategy to speak to the people in those states. I think the progressive philosophy has the interests of those folks at heart as well -- we've just got to find a way to speak their language. There once was a time when farmers voted Democratic ...
As far as HaloScan goes, thanks for the offer, but I won't partake until the character limit is upgraded. I need a lot of characters to explain all the flaws in y'all's arguments ;-).
Boffoblog has an excellent comment system -- with the comments and the comment-writer integrated together into the permalink. I may investigate getting something like that. I hope that the current system of having to link to the comments, and then again to write a post, without seeing the comments is not too inconvenient for Warsaw Stationers (it shouldn't be with tabbed browsing! Just tab back and forth). Complaints, if many and vociferous, will convince me to change the system sooner rather than later.
Have you noticed the bookmark/tab icon Red? I've had some positive feedback on it -- even from wafflestomper!
If you want one, all you have to do is between your "head" tags, write LINK REL="shortcut icon" href= "whatever picture you choose from photobucket or something"-- as a tag, between the "<>" thingies. Some directions will tell you ".ico" is necessary at the end, but it's not. Mine is a ".bmp" for example. You may have to shrink the pic down to 32x32 or 16x16 though.
Boffoblog is using Type-Pad. It is superior, but it is not free. I think its like $14 a month.
Judge Wafflestomper is right...."What Icon"? You got to remember I am pretty stupid. Please be more specific. I don't know exactly what you are talking about.
I use Tabbed Browsing, but your comments don't open in a separate tab. Which means I cant see the original article or other comments while I am commenting. Which means I cant copy and paste from them into my comment.
As far as Dems appealing to the red spine voters...they would have to abandon their base to appeal to us. We are simply fundamentally opposed to the principles they represent. They are actively attempting to dis-enfranchise us, and take our power away and give it to "others", and we are never going to voluntarily participate in our political demise.
Bobbie,
Thank you for "hearting" my blog. Please come back. I hope to make money out of this someday, and more readership is the key to the big bucks ;-D. But seriously, please return, I want a big variety of views and I need a team to help me fend off these conservatives.
But America isn't f-ed. Just because the guy who we wanted to win didn't, won't ruin the country. What will ruin the country is if we sit back and pout, exasperated and inactive. Losing an election is part of democracy, not the end of the world. Clinton had eight years, and although the Republicans predicted disaster, America still did ok. I don't buy what the liberal doomsdayers are saying, either.
I also don't "hate" GWB -- as they say in "American History X" -- hate is baggage. I might add that it nearly always leads to violence. I strongly disagree with Bush, and this blog is here for me to present a (I hope) cool-headed argument for why.
Red, you have to open my blog in two tabs. Keep one on the comments page, and open the blogger "post a comment" in the other. Then you can switch back and forth and then cut and paste. I'll look into getting a new comment system.
Well, don't do it on my account. Don't interpret my comments as complaints. You should use whatever kind YOU prefer. It don't really matter to me. I am not suggesting you should use any particular system.
I did open this in a new window. With Maxthon you have to toggle a switch to force a new tab. But then you forget you did, then the next thing you know you have 20 tabs open.
My problem, not yours.
Let me know when you get rich blogging.
What Icon ?
Hey though, If I did want to suggest a change in your site......it would be to have a clock set to "Warsaw Time" displayed.
The math is just too hard for me.
OK....I figured out what y'all are talkin bout with the Address Bar and Tab Icons.
And while I get those from some sites (Blogger Home displays a big red B, Halo-Scan displays a big H, Photo-bucket has a little Camera, etc), I am not getting one here.
I am just getting a small default IE / Maxthon Icon.
What does your Icon look like... "WS"?
.
What Wafflestomper was laughing about is that for it to work with IE, it has to be saved as "favicon.ico".
I have made me a 16x16 Icon with Macroangelo, but I cant find anywhere to host it online....yet.
Photobucket dont host .ico files. And neither apparently does anybody else. The websites that have it, are self-hosted and just simply install it on their own server.
Does anybody know of a Blogger / Blogspot blog that has a Favicon that works with IE?
What Icon ?
Ok, I know why almost all of this is happening.
Red only uses IE or Maxthon. I think that these browsers only accept tag icons with the file name ending ".ico". Photobucket doesn't host such files, so Red and I are in search of somewhere that does. I switched my tab icon host from photobucket to yahoo briefcase (it holds .ico files, but adds a bunch of letters and numbers to the end), but obviously, as stomper's experience shows, this is not working out. Back to photobucket we go.
Who needs IE anyways. It's really ticking me off. In order to make things look nice in IE, I have to scrunch my text more than needed for Firefox and Netscape. The text size also makes a big difference. Try taking your text size down one lower, and see if it works better in IE. It should be ok in "medium."
I'm very attatched to the double-sidebar format. I'm going to experiment some more before I abandon it altogether.
After a good start, the Lions have been plummeting downhill. We've been dealing with "tough losses" for a long time in Detroit Lions Land. Too long.
Fortunately, I'm not able to watch any of these disasters. My satellite service doesn't offer any American Sports, except some playoff games in each major sport as well as the Superbowl.
I am just messin with you Stomper for accurately predicting my "What Icon" response.
I have not seen my or Gus's favicon with IE yet.
Mine is installed per the IE spec, and it still don't work with any of MY IE browsers. Although Dody (who hosted my Favicon.ico) sent me a screen-shot showing it working with his IE browser. I have no idea why it don't work with my IE...it should.
I have yet to see a blogspot blog that has a working Favicon in IE, I am thinking they might be blocking or re-directing it somehow.
Pied Piper?
Understanding how the market works long term, having people invest in the market vs in Social Security makes much more sense to me. The rates of return are significantly better. In the current system, the rates of return are so low that they do not keep up with inflation. Therefore, the current system is acutally losing money (in terms of buying power)! However, there are some caveats that need to be included. First, as I understand the current proposal, only a portion of the Social Security taxes would be available for investment. That is a good idea in that Social Security covers many more programs than retirement. Those other programs will either need to be eliminated (which is not part of the current debate nor have I heard of any suggestions that such a thought should be part of the debate) or continue to be funded. Second, the choices that would be included are fairly conservative. Conservative investing is not the best place for a young person to be, but what is proposed will still bring significantly better rates of return than the system currently realizes. Finally, I think that a basic education on money and how it works should be required in high school. Most people, at least according to my experience, do not understand money, insurance, mortgages, credit cards, nor stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and the market in general. In fact, there are alot of misunderstandings and, as a result, greed and fear tend to control how people react to the market. This situation is totally unnecessary. If such an education were available, it would help solve many of the retirement problems we are expecting to face. - Chuck
All that sounds great Chuck.
[A]s I understand the current proposal, only a portion of the Social Security taxes would be available for investment. But do you trust them?-- with congress already spending "like a drunken sailor," getting rid of a lumbering beast like SS has got to look attractive. Check out who's on the panel.
This blogger also finds it hard to believe that they'll stop at "a portion."
I think that a basic education on money and how it works should be required in high school.They can't even afford music, arts, or sports programs in the high schools anymore. And now they want to give public school money to the private schools. There's an education in money for you.
I double-entered and it still ran the citations into the answers. I'm working on it, I promise.
Canadians not afraid of homos
Let me preface by saying, I have no problem with Homosexuals having every single right Heterosexuals enjoy including marriage...to a point.
Yet I still consider myself a proud homophobe.
Let me ask you a few questions.
Lets say your only siblings are two brothers. One of them is married to a woman, and the other one lives with his homosexual partner. If you have young children and you and your spouse die in a car wreck...which brother would you want to raise your children?
Do you think Gay men should be allowed to adopt a male child?
If your sitting a Red Wings game with your Children, and the two men in front of you start kissing on each other, and your children ask you about it later, are you going to explain that behavior as "normal" and something that you would not be disappointed in them with if they turned out that way?
If you were an employer, and you discovered one of your employees was gay, and that made you uncomfortable being around him, should you be allowed to fire him because of that, or should you be legally forced to live with your discomfort?
Bottom line....do you really think its normal human behavior, or do you think its a violation of the laws of nature that should at least be discouraged?
Aren't you glad your parents were not gay?
Here is my take...I dont care what legislation my government enacts, they will never convince me its not wrong, and they will never force me to accept homosexual behavior as normal. If being a homophobe becomes illegal...I will remain a fugitive.
And I will teach my children that it is abnormal, and a sure-fire method of assuring their disowning, yet somehow I dont "feel" evil about my perspective....I feel normal.
Man, I left a comment here a couple of hours ago.
Did you delete it, or did it never show up here?
Regarding whether homosexuality goes against the laws of nature - it does not. First, humans are not the only animals that have been known to have same sex relations. Second, there is a growing body of biological evidence that suggests that homosexuality in fact has a biological (as opposed to a psychological) cause. If it does have a biological cause, then how can it be against the laws of nature? Finally, there was a time in human history when homosexuality was not only accepted, but also encouraged. Check out how the Spartans trained their young men and women, for instance.
Red,
I see two messages by you here. If there was another, I didn't delete it-- I don't know what happened. I appreciate all comments-- nothing you said was offensive or out of line. And thanks for being frank.
Here's my response to that first comment (posted at 2:55 A.M. my time):
I'm not so sure how "proud" you should be of your homophobia, but of course you feel normal about it-- most folks feel that their beliefs are reasonable. I can't necessarily say that I believe your take is reasonable (you'll probably think mine is unreasonable as well), but it is understandable. If normal means in line with a majority of Americans, then I can say with certainty that my views are not normal. I can only hope to explain my position with patience and confidence, and hope people eventually come over to my side.
... which brother would you want to raise your children?The one who I thought would be a better parent -- but being homosexual or living with a homosexual partner wouldn't disqualify any brother of mine from taking care of my children if I were to pass on. There are already gay parents bringing up children nowadays, and I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that it somehow encourages them to be gay. I agree with Chuck that homosexuality is biological -- I was not taught heterosexuality, I felt it, I must say, with every fiber of my being and I can only reason that it's the same way for those who are homosexual. I've had some gay friends and they've confirmed this to me.
Why anyone would choose to be homosexual, with all of the prejudice and hate directed at gays, I can't even begin to imagine.
Do you think Gay men should be allowed to adopt a male child?Yes. As long as they fulfill the same requirements that heterosexual parents must meet. I think it's better that children grow up in loving homes, than in an orphanage. Gay parents can provide the same caring and nurturing environment that straight ones can.
are you going to explain that behavior as "normal" and something that you would not be disappointed in them with if they turned out that way?I would not teach my children that it was something to hate or be afraid of. I would teach them that when the time comes, they will have feelings for someone special, and I'll love them no matter who they choose for a partner.
I would certainly not be disappointed in my child for being who he/she was. My child being gay just doesn't scare me. What scares me is my child not being happy, or being forced to hide his/her identity from his/her own father. With so many folks out there who hate gay folk, my child (if gay) will always, always have me on his/her side.
should you be allowed to fire him because of that, or should you be legally forced to live with your discomfort?Just as I believe that you shouldn't be able to fire someone for being black or Asian or Jewish or Polish, I don't think you should be able to fire someone for being gay. Allowing business owners to do that would immediately bring down wages for gays, since they would be free to say that their gay employees made them "uncomfortable" as soon as they gained enough seniority for a promotion. Since many gays are highly skilled and educated people, that could lead bad news for the job market in general.
That's in case you were looking for practical reasons for encouraging equal labor rights. -- It's also the right thing to do.
Why knowing that someone puts his penis in a different place than you could make someone so uncomfortable that it affects his working relationship with him is beyond me.
If it's because you're afraid that he's into you, then you need to calm down. If it's because he's coming on to you, and you've made it clear that you're not interested, then he should be fired immediately.
Aren't you glad your parents were not gay?Well, nobody's biological parents were gay, so I'm glad they were not gay in the sense that I was born.
If I try a thought experiment, pretending that my parents had been exactly the same, in every way, except that they had been either both men or women, then I can imagine that I would indeed be different than I am now: I would be much more active in the gay rights movement. Living in a culture where my folks were constantly made fun of, discriminated against, and attacked by the church is the type of thing that would -- due to my stubborn character, which has nothing to do with my sexuality -- make me an even more ardent fighter.
But I surely wouldn't be gay myself -- Nothing could change that about me.
Bottom line....do you really think its normal human behavior, or do you think its a violation of the laws of nature that should at least be discouraged?Like Chuck said, I do believe it is normal human behavior. Scientists haven't proven why homosexuality occurs, but my guess is that it has something to do with overpopulation. When a species becomes to many, then its food supplies run low, and famine and even war ensue. There's a danger that the whole species could lose out. Perhaps homosexuality is evolution's natural population explosion regulator. When you remember that we have no natural predators, perhaps be thankful that we have homosexuals around!
And, as I mentioned above, they can also serve a societal purpose as parents for those children whose parents aren't there or are in no shape to raise them.
I have spiritual feelings about it as well. I believe that God put gay folks among us to challenge us: to challenge our prejudices against our reason, and his message that we love our neighbor; to challenge us to be fair with everyone, despite our superficial differences.
Can someone PUUUULLLLEEEEEEEZZZZZ tell me how to put other people's comments in italics on this thing, and make it so they don't run into my answers? Is it a problem with the italics tag? unfortunately, blogger won't seem to accept the "cite" tag, nor will it accept the "break" tag or the "p" tag when I'm commenting. I don't experience this problem when I'm writing posts.
Both of my above comments didn't appear here until several hours after I posted them. I guess Blogger's comment server was runnin slow last night.
I have noticed Blogger comments dont allow the use of the break tag. I think it might automatically converts "Hard Returns". try doing 2 hard returns before you start typing response.
Lessons from Warsaw's Past
Bull Moose on Rummy, part II
Breaking up is hard to do
One good thing about the strong złoty is that plane tickets are cheap. Gustav will make it home for Christmas.
You might be interested Andrew, that Belka and the NBP are fighting over what to do about the strong złoty. (PM)Belka and (Deputy PM and Econ Min) Hausner think intervention is needed, whereas cheif central Banker Leszek Balcerowicz believes intervention is a bad idea, and thinks the złoty will return to reasonable levels on their own. Interestingly, his vice president, Krzysztof Rybinski, has repeated that the złoty is overvalued and he's right.
From Interfax:
Belka said:
"The appreciation worries not only the government but also the management of the central bank," Belka said. "In the nearest time I will ask the governor of the central bank and I will invite the Monetary Policy Council and the central bank's management for a meeting [to discuss] the exchange rate policy and what can we do in an environment where the zloty has very rapidly appreciated in the past few months."
The Polish currency has been strengthening as of Poland's entry to the EU on May 1, 2004. The zloty has gained over 17% to the dollar and over 11% to the euro from the beginning of the year.
-------
Rybinski believes that American speculators are pushing the złoty higher than it should be. The economy here is doing well, but not that well.
With the dollar so low, people seem to be looking to "hot" currencies- making exports to the U.S. very difficult. It could really slow down this emerging "Polish tiger."
Nothing wrong in speculating, Andrew, capitalism depends on risk. Just be careful. Make your money and get out, the złoty is gaining not only against the dollar, but against the euro, and I'm not so sure it should be, at least not that much. I think the złoty is in for a correction soon. For my part, I will be buying undervalued dollars with my overvalued złotys.
I am pretty convinced that the US is a country past its prime. Will our generation as a whole ever be able to have the same standards of living as our parents?
Pshaw, my friend, don't be so pessimistic. Standards of living are increasing all the time, although wages and salaries may not be living up to our parents' standards. There's still time, and I believe in America as a concept. Things will get better. Bad leaders and tough times come and go-- Something special about America remains. (feel free to heave now if that was a bit too cheesy for you) I do beleive, however, that America's time as the lone superpower may be fading. The EU is becoming stronger, and we all know about emerging China. I estimate it's the natural course of events, but we'll have to learn to live in such a world. "You're either with us or against us" will be a much more difficult line to take.
How about Poles of this generation?Signs are that things are getting better-- The government is on the right track as far as privatization and (yes) lower taxes. Wages are set to rise next year by four or five percent. Even Polish coal is profitable!. Still, unemployment can't seem to drop below 18 percent-- too many structurally unemployed if you ask me. This country simply has too many farmers. Something will have to be done with them, or we'll have to just wait until they die off. Until then, wages will remain low and unemployment high. But eventually, eventually, more investment will mean higher wages and better goods for Poles.
122 Km of highway is going to be built next year (twice as much as last year)-- can you believe it?!
Re: Your Nasdaq/WIG 20 chart-- extremely interesting, but it only covers one year-- a year in which EU entry has fuelled Polish optimism and a flood of investment, also a year in which high oil prices and an election have fuelled uncertainty in the US. None of that will last. The WIG 20 is also a bluechip index, and the Nasdaq is a tech index. Here is the WIG 20 against the Dowand here is the WIG against the Dow. You can see that the Dow didn't do so well throughout the year, but that lately it's caught up. I still think there's hope for us yet. . .
For those of you bewildered by all this, the WIG is the main index on the Warsaw Stock Exchange. Something like the Dow on the NYSE. If y'all are interested, here's the WSE's site in English.
Thanks stomper, I was hoping the folks at home would notice the icon. I worked hard on it. Wanted one for a long time and found that if you fiddle around on the internet enough, you can find some directions on how to do it. Since I'm a bleeding-heart liberal, I'll share my secrets with Red, if he asks nice.
Stomper, have you discovered the wonders of tabbed browsing? The icon in the address line also appears on the tabs, making them much easier to navigate if you've got 20 or so tabs open (not enough room for text). The icon should also appear in your favorites/bookmarks sidebar. I've found that on some versions of explorer, however, it doesn't. Not sure why.
Why did Red get rid of the album collection?
Although I switched to Mozilla/Firefox long ago, you guys are so far ahead of me. Andrew, can you let me in on what EggOn is? Where can I find this ad block?
For those interested (i.e.Andrew): Gustav spoke with one of the board members of the U.S. ExIm Bank today. Seems the U.S. is highly willing to lend to LOT at extremely advantageous rates, if only they decide to buy the new Boeing 7E7, and not the Airbus A380. They also believe that it might be a good idea for the Poles to give all other European businesses the finger and use their newly gained EU structural funds to pay for waste-management, telecom, and transport development provided by American businesses. Hey, at least you've got to give it to the Bush admin for trying to close the trade gap. The bank offers no funding to American companies who want to import Polish goods, despite their name.
Using taxpayer dollars to fund the purchase of American goods by other countries: Is this not wealth redistribution, with the wealth laundered through another country?
No pass no play
A moral leader?
it seems to me that if you concede that abuse is inevitable, then that next sentence should read 'are against it' instead of 'were against it'. unless there are special circumstances when you willing to accept abuse, i'd say that sounds like pacifism. most pacifists object to the killing, not the pictures of prisoners in hoods...Right stomper. What I meant to say was "were against going to war in the first place."
And yes, I'm still against it. But I'm not a pacifist. There is indeed at least one circumstance when I am willing to accept a level of abuse-- when our national security depends on going to war (and whether Iraq is an example of that is something I suspect we could go on and on about-- in fact, we have). Please understand, I am not condoning abuse, only ready to accept such horrid behavior (and killing, which I am also generally against) as an inevitible result of necessary war. If we know such things will most likely happen, it's even more important that we only go to war when absolutely necessary. Of course, I also believe we should do our best to limit such abuse, however possible.
it is the actions of the top officials that should lead to their resignation, not the actions of others. rumsfeld shouldn't resign if prison torture occurred; he should resign if he knew about and did nothing, or took no new precautions to see that it ended once he was aware.Well, I think these criteria were fulfilled. I seem to recall that Bush gave Rumsfeld a good "talking to" (he seems to be getting a lot of those lately) back in April when the story broke, for not conveying the seriousness of the abuse. My inkling is that he didn't convey said seriousness simply because he didn't think it was that serious. These new pictures prove that it hasn't been taken seriously in the military either (and who is the leader of the military?). I would also add that such behavior could have easily happened (and did) 50 or 100 years ago. In today's media environment, it is of utmost importance that the SoD understand how easily such images get out, and that he make it a priority to limit such actions from ever happening.
if abuse were to occur (and what do you think) in an american prison, the calls for the governor's resignation sure are muted.I think that there might be calls for the State Corrections Director to resign. Indeed, if such pictures came out of Michigan, I would sure wonder about Ms. Granholm's style of leadership. Is she giving the impression that such things will be tolerated? If she didn't fire the SCD after the first instance of this abuse coming to light, she might be sending that message.
Very good and useful things that you have written in your blog.
Penny Stocks
Mr Sour
Among the verity of blogs your written blog is unique one.This is appreciated. It is very nice and interesting.
|
my feed
