Comments Posted By Dan
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 30 Comments
Hi Rick. Well done and good on you. This is the latest example of why you are one of the few honest-to-God principled conservatives publishing anywhere.
Comment Posted By Dan On 7.12.2007 @ 12:09
RON PAUL: PANDERER TO THE PARANOID?
Rick did a great job with this column. I can't stand the Ron Paul spambots who act like he will correct every problem this country has. He's not a Republican, and even if he wins the nomination, which is a longshot, he will not have my vote.
Comment Posted By Dan On 8.11.2007 @ 01:16
"WILL NO ONE RID ME OF THIS MEDDLESOME TERRORIST?"
Hi Rick. A couple thoughts:
1. The left is jumping on it beacause Fox is slanted to the right, not despite it. Their propaganda catapulting is what gets challenged and called fake; when someone there actually challenges Republicans that's news even if the challenge itself is dubious.
2. The standard you set for the colonel is much higher than other guests on Fox (or the wider media for that matter). How often do you see analysts challenged on underlying assumptions? It just doesn't happen, and of course a pox on them for it. To single this guy out is a little strange. (Here's one random example from yesterday: "Shays condemned a House Democratic leader for saying that 'if the Iraqi war went well it would be bad for Democrats.'" No House leader said that but it's passed along uncritically.
I'm a regular reader and think you're one of the few honest to God intellectually honest voices on the right, but this post has a little flab.
Comment Posted By Dan On 26.10.2007 @ 08:35
LEBANESE ARMY KILLS ABSSI, CLAIMS VICTORY
Heh. I love this quote from the article...
"Mohammed Khodor Najib, 65, boasted about how he captured a militant in Mohammara, a farming community near the camp.
"I found one of them hiding in my garden," he said. Using a hunting rifle, he opened fire. "I hit him and handed him over to the army.""
Comment Posted By Dan On 3.09.2007 @ 08:53
IRAQ IS NOT LIKE VIET NAM EXCEPT WHEN IT IS
I personally don't care what happens to the Iraqi people if and when we finally withdraw. I feel sorry for them no doubt. But I've felt sorry for them ever since we invaded their country and ruined their lives. What we've allowed to happen to them is disgusting and shameful. What will happen when we leave will no doubt also be disgusting and shameful.
Nonetheless, I want our troops out of harm's way. I see no reason whatsoever to have our troops getting killed indefinitely when there is no hope of the Iraqis resolving their numerous and unending issues. I support the troops, not the Iraqis. I'm sure you Rightwingers are shocked and awed that a liberal supports the troops since all your talking points say otherwise. Nonetheless, us lefties actually support the troops, with action not lip service. We want our troops out. Not because we're soft. Because we'd prefer that they were attacking al-qaeda in Pakistan (you know that Osama guy W has forgotten about except when quoting him in speeches). Iraq has never had anything to do with al-qaeda and never will. Iraqis will destroy any al-qaeda remnants as soon as we leave. You think the sunnis and shiites are killing each other in preparation for letting al-qaeda take over Iraq?
I'm curious how righties can continue to support W now that he's labelling Iraq the New Vietnam. It's gotta be tough carrying water these days in the face of this most recent and pathetic PR campaign. The only comparisons to Vietnam that should apply to Iraq are: 1. We should've never been there in first place. 2. We should have never stayed as long as we did.
In closing, I'd like to ask why anyone should believe what W is telling us about what would happen if we were to leave Iraq? He hasn't been right about a single thing other than the fact that it would "be hard work" when it comes to Iraq. Why should we believe him when he says that Iraq would turn out like Vietnam? He wasn't anywhere near Vietnam. He has no military expertise that we know of. Why do people still act like he knows what he's talking about?
Comment Posted By dan On 24.08.2007 @ 11:01
9/11 TRUTHERS GUT PUNCHED BY HISTORY CHANNEL
I don't really care if the truth is ignored by the truthers. This documentary is very important because it addresses, or rather, undresses the truthers in front of everyone else. Whether or not they believe they are naked is of no consequence.
My favorite exchage from "Thank You For Smoking" is the one between Nick Naylor and his son as he tries to explain the importance of argument and persuasion.
Joey Naylor: But you still didn't convince me.
Nick Naylor: It's that I'm not after you. I'm after them.At that, Nick points to the mob of people milling around his son.
You expose the Truthers, not to convince them, but to convince their target audience. The fact of it is that the same skeptic who could naively be persuaded by a Truther is a thousand times less likely to fall for it if they see this intriguing documentary.
And that is what matters.
Comment Posted By Dan On 29.08.2007 @ 14:23
TIME IS NOW THE BIGGEST ENEMY IN IRAQ
This is a depressing post. I doubt anyone will read down this far through the usual fare, but I'll go ahead and comment anyways since it won't do anyone any harm.
For some reason, people just cannot open their historical apperture up widely enough. The issue facing our foreign policy in the aftermath of Soviet collapse, itself a placeholder for the collapse first of Ottoman empire and then the various British and French administrations, is how to coax a part of the world with its own forms of resistance to what passes for the post-WWII mostly economic, but at least also superficially, political order.
The precedents were: colonialism, imperialism, military administration, support/bribery for anti-Soviets or pro-Soviets, then support for dictators against less desirable dictators (Iran-Iraq), then leaving Afghanistan. All of these have horrible fallout, whether entirely figments of imagination or ones with clear economic and military consequences.
Let's leave aside the other considerations, just for the sake of brevity.
Then came Afghanistan following 9/11, the routing of the Taliban, and the relatively peaceful if incomplete establishment of the Karzai government, with the consent of the loya jirga, and the support of the Europeans, more or less. This was very encouraging, that the "graveyard of empires" should be so amenable to a light invasion, should enjoy substantial cooperation from in-country opponents of the current government, and should transition out of criminality into a more traditional, and traditionally and appropriately introverted, relationship with the world system.
But look at Afghanistan now: the Taliban rehabilitate in Pakistan, which we cannot invade for fear of empowering radicals who clearly wield great authority and popularity in the country; opium production continues, partly coerced by the Taliban but also partly for basic economic reasons and lack of incentive not to produce this crop; Karzai's government relies completely on NATO and international support. The Taliban have now won concessions of sovereignty from the Pakistan government in Waziristan and in Bajaur province; they have control over others, though less officially. Southern regions of Afghanistan still succor the Taliban, and sympathize with them on the basis of religious belief and tribal bonds. Bush just had to send 12,000 more troops there to contain the "spring offensive." Afghanistan is clearly as close to collapse as Iraq is.
But in all this there is little attention to the traditional, historical character of these countries, and of the religion that goes with them - knowledge of which can provide the only basis for guaging our successes there.
"Don't invade Iraq because the Arabs can't get along" is not a reason not to invade. This is the source of our problem with them: their traditional culture. Our modern culture - even the conservative variety detested with such ferocity by so many - is incomparably liberal in comparison to life in any of these countries. Yet these countries cannot be simply indulged in their folkways while they also have oil to purchase advanced weaponry; while they remain the incubators of a mature virulent jihadi resurgence that has actually been everpresent in Islamic civilizations and in its current form arose with the crumbling of the Ottoman Empire towards the end of the 19th century and joined global intellectual commerce (almost invisibly) via the ingresses and egresses provided by the British emprie.
The point is this is much, much larger than the political affiliations dominant in the United States in the period of the 43rd Presidency, and yet the centripital force to regard it as such is so strong that almost no other context is actually ever considered.
Afghanistan is Afghanistan; Iraq is Iraq. The USA is the USA. There will be an Afghanistan after our forces leave, as there will be an Iraq. There will be a USA after Bush leaves office.
Clear your minds and begin again.
Comment Posted By Dan On 30.04.2007 @ 20:45
Welcome! to reality.
Your next mission is to read Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness", noting the parallels between the "civilizing mission" of the British and the idea of "spreading Democracy".
Utopianism is always flawed. The above comments are the wrath of the True Believers. Fare thee well, and have fun with the freepers.
Comment Posted By Dan On 30.04.2007 @ 00:33
"AS LONG AS WE'RE TALKING, WE'RE NOT SHOOTING AT EACH OTHER"
Methinks the Bush administration knew the six party talks were bound to fail but instead of placing the blame for that squarely on the norks where it belongs wanted someone to share it with.
They knew no one would place blame in the irrational party where it belongs because it will do no good after all they are irrational; and the goal of the blamers in the press and politics is to get action or demonize, so they looked for partners to share the burden.
Comment Posted By Dan On 15.10.2006 @ 09:44
9/11 TIN FOIL HATS ARE MELTING
"Given the witnesses, no, we cannot agree on that"
...would that be the same witnesses who claim the aircraft skimmed across the lawn (undamaged, not a scratch) before striking the building (Pentagon)
"Given the parts recovered from the scene—of both the aircraft and the victims—no, we cannot agree on that."
...there was a piece of fuselage and a few bodys, clearly not enuf wreckage to verify a jumbo passenger jet crashed there, oh I forgot, they 'vaporize' on imapct, just like on the wiley e coyote cartoons huh?"You’re an idiot. A lunatic. You’re the type of person who shouldn’t be trusted with a spoon."
...anybody who believes the 'official story' shouldn't be trusted with a spoon I'd say, c'mon call me some more names...reminds me of the days on the playground, kinda' cute...wise up fella' we have been lied to and we all bought it, hook line and sinker, for awhile anyhow...it won't be long and this whole 9/11 coverup will be blown wide open, and it will not be a good thing I don't think...the truth always comes out eventually, no matter who controls the evidence...
Comment Posted By dan On 18.12.2006 @ 16:27
