Comments Posted By michael reynolds
Displaying 651 To 660 Of 839 Comments
TORTURE: A MATTER OF OPINION OR A QUESTION OF LEGALITY
Retire:
You're the one not dealing with reality. To save my kids I'd shoot you in the head. Is that how you want our country to be run? Or do you think maybe there should be laws to keep people from killing other people on mere suspicion.
We make laws when we are calm and rational to govern our behavior when we are neither. Most of what we have of value in this world comes out of that system of law. Law, not passion. It's what differentiates us from animals. Or from animals like Saddam.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 22.12.2008 @ 02:41
Laura:
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 20.12.2008 @ 23:17
I'm an Obama supporter and an atheist, but I found your comment moving and rather wonderful.
You're right, and it's a brave, principled post.
Your political allies will attack you and your political opponents will praise you. But I hope the former will bear in mind that if all you're doing is agreeing with your allies and echoing their sentiements you're of no value as a writer.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 19.12.2008 @ 16:33
BUSH: I HAD TO TRASH THE FREE MARKET IN ORDER TO SAVE IT
Actually, I'd like to say that I'm prepared to vote Republican in perpetuity in exchange for a bailout. A modest .01% of that 8 trillion would ensure my loyalty.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 17.12.2008 @ 16:32
I find myself uncharacteristically uncertain about this issue. I just don't know. I guess we'll see.
The politics, however, are clear enough, including the fact that if Detroit dies the GOP can kiss Michigan and Ohio and much of the rest of the rust belt goodbye for a long, long time. The GOP will be a regional rather than a national party.
Not when 53% of UNION members oppose the auto bailout. I think you underestimate the feeling that is building up out in the country. There are a lot of people who are unsure about $8 trillion being given out like it was penny candy.
ed.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 17.12.2008 @ 13:25
The neo-cons were not about securing energy. They were idealists. Read what they wrote, listen to what they said.
In what way was an invasion of Iraq securing our energy supplies? Oil is a commodity. Unless it is sold it has no value to the producer. When it is sold it will move through the market. So, one way or the other, Iraq wanted to sell oil, and we wanted to buy it. So one way or the other that would have happened. No invasion necessary. Saddam wasn't cutting off our supply of oil, just the opposite, we were keeping his oil off the market for political reasons.
You could argue that we desperately wanted US companies to handle the extraction rather than, say, Chinese companies. But the actual drilling is too small an economic interest to fit your conspiratorial theory.
As for #5, every point you made took us back to: US evil, indifferent, and complicit. We are not the puppet masters of the world. Any number of godawful things go on without our involvement.
And anyway what is the logical conclusion to be drawn from seeing the US as complicit? That we should do nothing? Or that we should do something? I'm confused. If we do nothing we're guilty, and if we do something we're guilty. Your core principle is: we're guilty.
Simple question: should we intervene in Congo or Sudan? Should we have intervened in Rwanda? If we fail to intervene aren't we even more complicit?
And one more: If I grant arguendo that we were complicit in the rise of Saddam, doesn't that argue in favor of toppling him? Having created the monster, isn't Dr. Frankenstein the person most responsible for stopping him?
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 17.12.2008 @ 13:43
Chuck:
1) The fact that we failed to accomplish our goal does not in itself invalidate the goal. We try to cure cancer. We fail.
2) We've "had a hand in their business" and therefore they bear no responsibility for their own government? Really. Various other nations had a hand in Weimar Germany. Does that mean the Germans are blameless for the 3rd Reich?
3) We agree that we did not force Iraq to start a war with Iran. It's nice to agree.
4) So we are to blame for anything, anywhere that we know about? Like the mess in Congo? So, it follows logically if we are responsible that we have a moral obligation to act. Right? So, we're sending the Marines to Congo?
5) Out of curiosity, is there anything for which we are not to blame? Or, to reverse the question does no one but the US bear any responsibility? Does it follow, if we are respnsible for all the evil in the world, and no one else is responsible for their own actions, that we are equally responsible for all the good and no one else deserves credit?
6) The blood for oil meme has some truth to it. But only some. Few political events have single causes. And you're missing the essential tragedy here, which is the idealism, however much you may dislike it, of people who hoped we could build a free country in the middle east and by so doing extend the blessings of liberty to people who had known only tyranny.
Don't oversimplify the world: it makes for faulty analysis. It's not a simple case of U.S. bad, everyone else good. We are sometimes bad. And sometimes stupid. And sometimes heroic. Like any well-conceived character.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 16.12.2008 @ 21:50
Surabaya:
You're saying: 1)the world doesn't like Mr. Bush, and 2) that because they don't like him they don't see him as our representative to the world, 3) therefore pelting Mr. Bush with shoes shouldn't be taken as an insult to the United States.
The world's opinion of Mr. Bush doesn't alter the fact that Mr. Bush is the POTUS, and that any president is the representative of the United States abroad. It's not about popularity, it's about the office.
As for Mr. Bush screwing up Iraq, you're kidding, right? It's like accusing someone of stinking up a cesspool. Iraq was a sh*thole before we got there. It still is one and is likely to remain one.
Had the Iraqi people taken care of their own business they wouldn't be where they are today. The US didn't force Iraq to start a war with Iran, attempt the genocide of Kurds, carry out murder and torture on an epic scale or invade Kuwait. The Iraqi people have been pretty lousy at self-government. (Answering the question: "can I give an example of 'understatement?'") Turned out we weren't very good at governing Iraq, either, but our invasion was as much effect, as cause, of Iraq's status as a miserable, brutal, hate-filled, superstition-addled ghetto.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 16.12.2008 @ 15:29
Surabaya:
I don't get why this is hard. He's the President of the United States. So long as he holds that office he is the representative of this country abroad. The man may not deserve respect, but the office does.One more thing: however badly Mr. Bush screwed up this war, he did not set out to hurt Iraqis. Obviously, the opposite is true. He did his best to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people. He's a f*ck up, but for all his many (many) faults he was trying to help Mr. Shoetoss, not hurt him.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 16.12.2008 @ 00:30
It may surprise you to learn, but I think Bush handled it very well. Laughing it off was the right response. And he has damned good reflexes for an old guy.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 15.12.2008 @ 11:33
