Comments Posted By michael reynolds
Displaying 151 To 160 Of 839 Comments
IS THERE ANY WAY SARAH PALIN CAN RECOVER?
Like many words, "elite" (in its IQ-modifying usage) has evolved over the years. Originally the taxonomy of intelligence went something like this:
Dumb as a belly button lint
Stupid
Normal
Smart
Smart and educated
EliteThe GOP has a slightly different, simplified system:
Tea Partier
Imbecile
EliteIt's all part of the move to make everyone feel special. So now, if you're marginally brighter than, say, Ralph Wiggum, you're part of the "elite." According to the most recent polls approximately 20% of the population is decidedly non elite. (More in the South.)
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 16.11.2009 @ 16:56
MooseH:
Those three countries that were feared were destroyed by America’s military and financial superiority, not because of like or dislike.
I never implied they were destroyed because of like or dislike. The initial statement was that it's better to be feared than loved. I countered that these were three nations that had been feared but had not done terribly well for themselves. In point of fact we weren't talking about destruction.
So your response was off-topic.
But just to offer you some of the education you clearly did not receive in school, we did not destroy the 3rd Reich, the USSR destroyed the 3rd Reich with an assist from us and our British allies. The overwhelming majority of Wehrmacht killed were killed by the Red Army. The vast bulk of Hitler's army was deployed in the USSR.
Part of the reason we were able to form a wide alliance -- even including the Soviets -- was that our allies did not fear us but trusted us.
It's also why we were uniquely capable of building NATO and holding Soviet power in check. The Brits, French, West Germans -- and even the common people in many enemy states -- believed we were the model for freedom and tolerance.
We certainly did destroy the Japanese empire. No question about that.
The USSR was not spent into bankruptcy by Ronald Reagan, in fact by Reagan's day we were spending far less as a percentage of our GDP than we had under Kennedy. Had it been possible to simply outsepnd them they'd have fallen over dead by the 1960's.
The USSR fell because communism is a stupid system. (By the time they finally crumbled we'd been pointing that out to them for some time.) The case that communism was a stupid system was infinitely strengthened by the growth in freedom and prosperity of Western Europe. GRowth made possible by US tanks at the Fulda Gap to be sure, but also by the Marshall Plan, by our willingness to keep trade barriers low, by our enabling of capital to European countries -- in particular you might want to recall, to our erstwhile enemies, Germany and Italy.
We acted generously, wisely and reliably. The Europeans knew they could trust us to position troops in their countries and that unlike more "feared" nations we would behave ourselves.
I don't know what psychological quirk requires you to imagine that the whole world goes in fear of us, but I think that's more about your personal needs than it is about history.
I would respond to the rest of your comment but it's just incoherent rambling.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 16.11.2009 @ 15:05
That first number should be "1000."
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 15.11.2009 @ 23:52
Countries don’t have “friends”, they have interests and in international relations, it always better to be feared and respected than “liked”.
Three countries that were feared:
1) Japanese Empire (deceased)
2) German 3rd Reich (deceased)
3) USSR (deceased)Three countries that are liked:
1) Canada
2) Denmark
3) USASee, the problem with repeating nostrums and truisms and the like is that as a rule they don't hold up well to scrutiny.
People extrapolate from evolution to politics. The problem is they don't really understand evolution, either. Predators fare rather poorly in the long run. Contrast the number of tigers to the number of bunnies.
How many empires existed 100 years ago, 500 years ago, 100 years ago, and now? See? The whole fear thing is overrated. The richest nations on Earth aren't feared -- they are trusted.
The US has never been particularly feared. It's one of the reasons much of the world still comes to us as an honest broker. It's one of the reasons we were able to put NATO together and stand against the Soviets -- precisely because our European allies trusted us not to exploit our power to their disadvantage.
Our great strength is that we're not assholes. See, we're the good guys. So yes, it's helpful when the world likes and trusts us.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 15.11.2009 @ 23:38
Earl:
In the short time that Obama has been in office the US has zoomed something like 30 places in order to once again be the world's most admired nation.
You might want to bear in mind that foreign heads of state -- unlike Republicans -- are not retarded and thus less likely to obsess over nonsense.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 15.11.2009 @ 17:36
Busboy:
Dude, Exodus:
Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
It's pretty clear that not only should American presidents pee on Akihito's shoes, but they should do the same to his sons and to their sons in turn.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 15.11.2009 @ 16:27
Wait a minute, are we done with the manufactured outrage over the KSM trial? We're already on to a new manufactured outrage? Do you guys have a schedule or something, so we can know when one manufactured outrage expires and the next one is due to begin? I'd like to be able to plan ahead.
Obama's in China now. I'm worried he'll demonstrate his foolishness, unreadiness, naivete, Muslimness, communism, fascism, racism, and seething hatred of all things American by attempting to use chopsticks.
Real Americans use forks.
And really, isn't a chopstick just a blunt version of an acupuncture needle proving that Obama will turn 1/6th of the US economy over to death panels that will kill old people with needles?
Say it with me now: No more chopsticks! No more chopsticks!
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 15.11.2009 @ 12:37
SOME SHORT NOTES ON KSM AND AMERICAN JUSTICE
John Burke:
You are simply talking past me, past the issues that Rick raised, and past this thread.
The debate was not over whether KSM would be convicted. It was over the question of whether we could do so safely.
The examples I gave went to the fact that we and others were able to prosecute terrorists and did so without incurring intolerable dangers. That's what we are talking about. You are talking about something different.
Now, it's a free country, so if yo want to go on debating an entirely different topic with some imaginary opponent, okay by me, just don't expect a response.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 15.11.2009 @ 10:18
Beelzebub:
It's been like that from the start. A bunch of red-staters from places bin Laden's never even heard of run around demanding we round up Muslims, stockpile guns, torture anyone who looks at us cross-eyed and just generally freak out like a bunch of little girls seeing a tarantula.
Meanwhile New Yorkers enjoy another bagel.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 14.11.2009 @ 23:04
Sure they are. You brought this up above to make a point:
“As pointed out above, the Europeans have tried, convicted and incarcerated Al Qaeda terrorists. The UK held IRA terrorists, the Spaniards held Basque terrorists.”
The point you made was, they can do it, so can we.
OK, but at least in the case of the UK, it would be wrong to think they just sent the cops out, gathered evidence, read the IRA suspects their rights, and hailed them before some fine British court. Faced with a number of terrorist casualties that was minimal, compared to 9/11, they launched what people might call an extra-legal crackdown, rounding up anyone remotely connected to Irish nationalism in Ulster, trying them in star chambers, holding them indefinitely without trial, and not incidentally, subjected many of the to beatings and inhumane treatment. AND THESE WERE THEIR OWN CITTIZENS.
And the relevance to the topic is what, precisely? Do you not know that no one doubts KSM will be convicted? Do you think that's the topic? There's a mountain of non-torture evidence against KSM including his own open-air, un-coerced statements. No one thinks this is about whether KSM will get convicted.
The point of Rick's piece was whether it would endanger NYC to hold the trial there.
Which brings me back to my point: read, then respond, not the other way around.
So maybe, at least, you’ll stop going round saying, well, if they can do it, so can we. What some of us propose — trying them before the Military Commissions created by Congress for that purpose and embraced by Obama and Holder — hardly comes close to what the Brits were prepared to do — and did.
It’s very relevant.
Um, no. It's not.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 14.11.2009 @ 22:31
