tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post2314489705999129089..comments2024-03-27T23:12:08.917-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Capitalism Give Its Impartial Judgement on the Iraq WarDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-67129969060836278032021-02-15T07:08:30.434-08:002021-02-15T07:08:30.434-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.buygold jewelery onlinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12956931367360609903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1081603724210994662007-11-18T20:05:00.000-08:002007-11-18T20:05:00.000-08:00I believe that the United States currently has one...I believe that the United States currently has one conservative party and one reactionary party.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-23044066497931863612007-11-18T18:55:00.000-08:002007-11-18T18:55:00.000-08:00cj, there is nothing wrong with admitting to a con...cj, there is nothing wrong with admitting to a conservative streak. Maintaining the status quo is usually the best strategy, except when it's time to jump!<BR/><BR/>The 'tanked' twit exhibits the sort of mentality I last encountered in the schoolyard: the goading, needling bully who seeks to get his chosen victim to lash out and then claim a just cause for wading in.<BR/><BR/>What does he get out of it? Apart from the thrill of righteous indignation, it would be reaction, mostly (like this comment and others). A bit of noise to drown out a POV he doesn't like. Reasoned argument, where it is offered, is used as an enticement only.<BR/><BR/>In a way, it is a pity that David blocked one of his comments: I distinctly recall a reference to neocons saving us from all being killed by terrorists (this, from a blatant felinophobe!). <BR/>And we all know what happened in the dead of winter to the singers of brave Sir Robyn's exploits!<BR/>Oh, well. All the less to react to.Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-54628351455829158312007-11-18T17:42:00.000-08:002007-11-18T17:42:00.000-08:00Ohmigoshgolly, Panzer says he won't vote for a Dem...Ohmigoshgolly, Panzer says he won't vote for a Democrat because a blogger who calls the Democrats "the better of the two" parties (darned with faint praise) won't let him post frothing at the mouth diatribes? So, given a choice between (exagerated for comedic effect) a Republican caught publicly kicking small dogs and children and the second coming of Harry Truman, Panzer will vote for the puppy abuser because (shudder) David Brin (who for the current election prefers Democrats) edited his posts.<BR/><BR/>OK. PJ has gone beyond "Ostrich" to mole.<BR/><BR/>Now, I've had far worse things done to me by self proclaimed Republicans, including nasty letters sent to my Commanding Officer... but I can think of circumstances when I would vote Republican. Because I realize that a. they didn't represent the Republican party and b. even if they did, there are times when you must vote for the opposition to keep an even worse person out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-6156176442173215502007-11-18T07:52:00.000-08:002007-11-18T07:52:00.000-08:00CJ: Although I tend to fall more on the liberal/de...CJ: Although I tend to fall more on the liberal/dem side of the fence (even in the best of times), I thought I should add my voice in support of your post. "Neocon crisis" -- yes! These people are not conservatives <I>or</I> Republicans; they are wolves in political-sheep's clothing (where a "sheep" is a metaphor for something perceived as safe-and-on-our-side and therefore who we want to support against those evil Democrats with the fake witch-noses the neocons put on them).<BR/><BR/>Mainly, though, your post reminded me of a question I've been gnawing on for awhile: What <I>is</I> conservatism? What <I>is</I> Republicanism? Whose definitions have we been using, and why? We need to have better documentation of these and other terms, so that we can recognize when they are hijacked (as now), and -- more importantly -- <I>reveal the hijacking to those who hold those terms in high esteem</I> (much as Dr.B has been attempting to do with the Ostrich Campaign).<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://m-w.com/dictionary/conserve" REL="nofollow">Conserve</A>: "to keep in a safe or sound state", "to avoid wasteful or destructive use of". <A HREF="http://m-w.com/dictionary/conservatism" REL="nofollow">Conservatism</A>: "2 a: disposition in politics to preserve what is established b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage) 3: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change"<BR/><BR/>And, ya know, that generally sounds pretty good to me. I've never been crazy about traditions, but here in the US we have a tradition of tolerance for the non-traditional... so as long as the "tradition" you're wanting mainly has to do with governance -- something we could certainly use now, as Bush has substantially trashed many of our most important governance traditions! -- I'm all for it.<BR/><BR/>"preserve that which is established" -- you mean, like keeping the environment "in a safe or sound state" and avoiding "wasteful or destructive use of" natural resources?<BR/><BR/>"social stability" -- like giving gay people the right to marry, so they too can have <A HREF="http://issuepedia.org/War_on_the_family" REL="nofollow">stable families</A>? And not rabble-rousing anti-gay sentiment, thus causing social disruption, in order to enhance one's personal power? Sounds good.<BR/><BR/>"limited government regulation..." -- like simplifying the rules so anyone can understand them, rather than requiring a team of lawyers to find the best exploit? Sounds good.<BR/><BR/>"individual financial responsibility..." -- yeah, I know, this one translates to an argument against government-run welfare programs and "socialized medicine". So, ok, who is "individually responsible" for the needs of those who are unable to help themselves? If nobody helps them, they become <I>more</I> of a burden, not less. I wouldn't be so cruel as to force them to appeal to the government for help, so I'm totally with the conservatives on the idea that we need to find a better solution (though of course it would not be responsible to discontinue existing programs, flawed as they are, until there is a replacement online). This is obviously a problem in need of some focused, non-power-mongering, conservatively-based thinking (i.e. not wildly spendthrift, and taking personal responsibility for the consequences)... though it may require some non-traditional solutions, since none of the traditional ones seem to be working.<BR/><BR/><I>(Resisting the urge to make a suggestion about returning to the tradition of whatever the system was before Reagan closed all the mental health care facilities back in the 80s, because that tradition may well have been deeply flawed; more research is needed. I presume that conservatism does not require <I>blind</I> adherence to tradition.)</I><BR/><BR/>So... where do I sign up for this "conservatism" thing?<BR/><BR/>(Speaking as someone who first registered to vote primarily for the chance to vote against Jesse Helms, who was plainly a radical trying to overturn our established and revered American traditions of tolerance and personal freedom.)Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-78559602971232071312007-11-18T06:45:00.000-08:002007-11-18T06:45:00.000-08:00It's a good idea to encourage others to get their ...It's a good idea to encourage others to get their own blogs. For example, I would jump over to Zorgon's from time to time. But not the other guy.<BR/><BR/>One thing the Panzer said, however, I wanted to comment on: the business about some Somalis gloating over their "victory." The mere thought of this makes just about every American angry. But what it amounts to is some punks dissing us. Hating us. Hating ME, also. Now we've all heard various debates in the past about how Americans should or should not not care if they are loved by the rest of the world, and the various debates get stretched and tortured until no one knows what their debating adversaries are talking about, but I wanted to cut past that to make the point that there will always be evil punks in the world who hate this country, and our policy should not be determined by kneejerk reactions to something like that.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-33195858082783092332007-11-17T23:29:00.000-08:002007-11-17T23:29:00.000-08:00Thank you cj.You appear to be PRECISELY the kind ...Thank you cj.<BR/><BR/>You appear to be PRECISELY the kind of libertarian-conservative that I want our save-the-enlightenment alliance to reach out to. <BR/><BR/>Your phrase "the neocon crisis" says it all. This is NOT about conservatism vs liberalism in any classic sense of the word. It is not left-vs-right. The issue is far too important.<BR/><BR/>It is precisely as if a ruling Democratic party had been taken over by rabid communists... possibly puppetted by the KGB, relentlessly acting to destroy the republic. I would have found that outrageous and objectionable. I hope and pray that enough Democrats would wake up in time to help their Republican neighbors bring that putsch to an end.<BR/><BR/>It happens that, in our generation, with commmunism a smoldering memory, the dogmatic/moronic/destructive force happens to have taken over the other party, the one on the right. Still, it is a situation just as tragic. Just as terrifying. Just as dangerous and perilous to everything we hold dear.<BR/><BR/>And to be frank, I wonder about those who blithely denounce their neighbors, for being misled by the Bushites. People who never once in their life had to deal with the frisson of horror that one faces, when realizing "this time MY side has gone mad..." such people have no business feeling smug. I dare them to swear that they would be quick to notice, if that ever happened! <BR/><BR/>And it may happen, someday. If the class system returns in full force, and the poor and middle radicalize, and the left resurges... it could happen, so don't be smug, you fellows on the left. You, too, may facethat dread. That shame.<BR/><BR/>People like cj are the reason I have held so strongly that <I>decent conservatives are the key.</I> They matter more than any ten classic democrats in this struggle. If you folks can waken your pals. If you can wrest control of the GOP back into the hands of pragmatic, courteous, reasonable men and women, there may be something yet to save, in a reborn American conservatism. God I hope so.<BR/><BR/>If only to give poor, spinning Barry Goldwater some rest, in peace.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-68319316259199266482007-11-17T20:49:00.000-08:002007-11-17T20:49:00.000-08:00Okay - a bunch of friends have just left my house,...Okay - a bunch of friends have just left my house, I'm just a little drunk, and I'm feeling just crazy enough to post what I'm actually thinking, although I'll probably regret this later. <BR/><BR/>Fact is, in general, I'm probably politically opposed to most of the people who feel at home here, and when this neocon crisis is over, I'll go back to opposing all y'all. <BR/><BR/>But for now, I feel more camaraderie among people with a certain <I>style</I> of discourse, and Panzer, even though I've probably voted with him more often than not (sigh), is not in that group. <BR/><BR/>So I'm just asking that the smart folk here remember that most of us libertarian-conservative Republicans would rather dwell on what what we have in common as Americans and get back to that point where the debate is about how best to achieve America's promise, not who is or isn't deserving of the label "American."<BR/><BR/>Have a good night, all, and thank you, Dr. Brin, for hosting this site. It's where I come for a reminder what's important politically, in the long run.Christian J. Schultehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06152984976764056219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-57151280558437943042007-11-17T18:17:00.000-08:002007-11-17T18:17:00.000-08:00Panzer: Do you actually expect anyone to believe y...Panzer: Do you actually expect anyone to believe you weren't already going to do so?<BR/><BR/>You made your absolute refusal to consider the possibility your stance might be the incorrect one perfectly clear already.<BR/><BR/>We already know that we can't hope to change your mind - all you can possibly do is convince the silent majority who might be watching this blog that you're right... and I don't think you're even coming close to accomplishing that, deleted comments or not.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11507725932358099333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-45474020385783510022007-11-17T18:03:00.000-08:002007-11-17T18:03:00.000-08:00Now THAT one I will leave posted. Any man who wou...Now THAT one I will leave posted. <BR/><BR/>Any man who would declare in advance that he will enslave his mind to, and vote forever for, a particular party, letting it control him robotically for the rest of his life, no matter what it does...<BR/><BR/>...all because one day a host told him to behave better as a guest...<BR/><BR/>...was never a person approachable by reason. I think you'll all understand now, if he's excised as a matter of routine.<BR/><BR/>But it does bring up an interesting question. I know we have some moderate lefties here (though alas, not the real article, since DonQ left). And several libertarians. And a bunch of former GOP folks. But is it possible to find a GENUINE neocon supporter who will come here and argue with us cogently?<BR/><BR/>I know a couple... genuine ostriches in that they seem nice and decent folk, though Fox-reciters, line -by-line. I'll see if I can recruit one or two. You guys are welcome also, to try.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-70672692710688504272007-11-17T17:25:00.000-08:002007-11-17T17:25:00.000-08:00>DB can't stop anyone from making their voice hear...>DB can't stop anyone from making their voice heard in general<BR/><BR/>Well don't worry, because I'll let my voice be heard from now on by voting Republican the rest of my life. And after that little anti-American censorship stunt, you can take that Ostrich bullshit and shove it up your hypocritical asses. <B>Because I've never breathed fresher air in my life.</B> Kiss my ass mother fuckers.<BR/><BR/>I don't need this. So I'll let you Democratic Party rejects argue with the stupid cunt who actually thinks censorship is a good idea, and the dude who's going out of his way to kiss Saddam's ass like some kind of pining homo. Boy, this website sure does attract a lot of people with political acumen!panzerjensenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13112215407072209659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-8973683493162751632007-11-17T15:55:00.000-08:002007-11-17T15:55:00.000-08:00This blog is to some extent a public place. But i...This blog is to some extent a public place. But it is also my "home" in a sense. And while Panzer's behavior was not officially obscene, it was driveling insipid and immature in the extreme. I have a perfect right to warn such a person, then, after several warnings, show him in the clearest possible way that he is unwelcome here.<BR/><BR/>I will defend to the death his right to make his own blog. He may even drop in here, whenever he likes, and - under comments - say "come to this URL to see my posted nyah nyah taunt that farts in Brin's general direction!"<BR/><BR/>But, at a site that is dedicated to evidence and reasoned argument among adults, I have no obligation to host playground screeches of "pooh-pooh kaka!"<BR/><BR/>(In fact, as you know, I put up with a lot of THOSE, from DonQ, so long as he laced them with occasional interesting material, insights from the left or at least answering questions germane to the topic at-hand. Something that Panzer has never, ever done.)<BR/><BR/> As for my over-use of the word, "monster", Doug makes a very good point. And probably a valid one. I rail against the way that romantics create pure "us-them" dichotomies in order to dehumanize their enemies. I claim that my overall philosophy... plus my personality tendency to aim contrarianism in all directions... preserves me from being accused of perpetrating romantic injustices.<BR/><BR/>But that is bullshit, of course. My fudamental nature, as a mythologist and writer, is to have been wired from birth with every nasty, creative, ecstatic, roaring, insightful, artistic and nonsensical romantic impulse there is! If I have dedicated all of my fealty to the Enlightenment, that does not mean I am all cold logic. I can feel rage and anger. I can hate.<BR/><BR/>And there comes a point when hatred is appropriate. <BR/><BR/>Look, I am on record having urged liberals to calm down, during the Reagan era. To concede his many good points, in order to gain credibility criticising his many bad ones. Few listened. But I am on record. (The USSR was indeed an "evil empire.")<BR/><BR/>But this situation is different. These klepto-liar-traitors have no redeeming qualities. If they are NOT deliberately dismantling the nation and civilization that I love, then they are doing a great job of imitating that program, by happenstance of dogmantism, insatiable robbery and titanic incompetence. <BR/><BR/> I MUST make clear that this is not politics as usual. They have crossed a line... a very generous zone in which people can be legitimate opponents, mistaken, foolish, but still fellow citizens. People to reason with. As I tried reasoning with Don Q. As I tried reasoning with Panzer.<BR/><BR/>I never used "monster" to describe either of them, by the way. My prevalent feeling is sadness. Though they represent shrill left-right extremes, I wish them well... though not here.<BR/><BR/>But people, there ARE monsters in the world. Oath-breakers and betrayers for whom Dante reserved the final circle of hell. There are differences among them, of course. I wanted Saddam dead -- but the Bushites that succored him and propped and enabled him and collaborated in his murders? I would still call W "sir" and answer a phone call. His version of monstrous betrayal should be punished with denial of power, full public revelation of all crimes, and the disdain of history.<BR/><BR/>Still, the word applies. His criminal gang long ago passed the line.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-14786557802411033252007-11-17T13:27:00.000-08:002007-11-17T13:27:00.000-08:00Ok I will try to make my point clearer. Whenever a...Ok I will try to make my point clearer. Whenever a person gets labeled as a monster it prevents both parties from ever getting their legitimate needs met. This is not to say we should “leave him alone” I can think of a dozen ways to prevent him from denying others humanity without calling him a Monster. The most effective of these you cogently stated in the Transparent Society but if both parties think of the other as Monsters it will not work and we get stuck with the mess we have in the Middle East. This idea is explained upon in the book by Marshal Rosenberg on non-violent communication. <BR/><BR/>Orwell and a lot of those you mention, were wrong about the prescription to fix our society. But my point was that Reagan, GOP neo-liberals, and neo-cons are in decedents of our Enlightenment/Liberal culture. They may deny it, but when we expelled all the conservative Tories in 1776-1784 America closed down conservatism. Then the French revolution put the nail in the coffin in Europe. Reagan thought highly of Tom Paine and his idea to spread democracy at the point of a gun. Honest conservatives like those described in the book Crunchy Cons care about keeping change slow enough to ensure that nothing good is lost. <BR/><BR/>Hope that clears that up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-53733002269394861932007-11-17T12:21:00.000-08:002007-11-17T12:21:00.000-08:00No, in a forum like this (which is, of course, pri...No, in a forum like this (which is, of course, private - hence why first amendment rights aren't necessary... DB can't stop anyone from making their voice heard in general) it is perfectly legitimate to ban anyone whose sole purpose is disruption, <B>no matter how they go about doing so</B>.<BR/><BR/>Concern trolling, continual insulting, pure vulgarity ... it doesn't matter.<BR/><BR/>If they are not only failing to contribute, but actively trying to hinder, there is no reason to leave them the ability to speak. <BR/><BR/>I mean, if someone ran into a Bush press conference with a loudspeaker and just started screaming gibberish into it to try to drown him out, I think security would be perfectly justified in removing that person - and that's governmental use of censorship.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11507725932358099333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-66473762445875618482007-11-17T11:58:00.000-08:002007-11-17T11:58:00.000-08:00Brin, while I have the utmost respect for you and ...Brin, while I have the utmost respect for you and your work, the troll is right for once. This is the internet, and seeing as panzerjensen's second comment is correctly spelled (if the removed post was indeed in l33t or something similar then you were justified), his obvious lack of understanding of the bill of rights aside, I don't see what else could possibly have justified removing his post. If you censor your own debate, nomatter how braindead the participants (and indeed he does seem to have a lack of grey matter), you're no better than those who would see all open discourse crushed.<BR/><BR/>- A longtime lurker and admirerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-59601292882566441822007-11-16T20:33:00.000-08:002007-11-16T20:33:00.000-08:00A screech and hysterical laugh cannot substitute f...A screech and hysterical laugh cannot substitute for evidence and reason.<BR/><BR/>The only thing you exhibit is fanatical loyalty to a "side" that has betrayed our military, our economy, our people and our country.<BR/><BR/>Go do it somewhere else. Don't return until it is to reason with us. Instead of screeching.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-92078546720304864752007-11-16T18:24:00.000-08:002007-11-16T18:24:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.panzerjensenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13112215407072209659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-5036014181895559762007-11-16T18:10:00.000-08:002007-11-16T18:10:00.000-08:00As a man who was a member of the military when Sad...As a man who was a member of the military when Saddam was captured, I can assure you we didn't jump for joy. We gave the release of tension sigh, one given by a man who has finished a hard job. We stood, and said, "We can go home now. It's over. Two or three months more, and we're out of here and go back to our lives."<BR/><BR/>How naive we were!<BR/><BR/>Saddam was not 'the' objective of the administration. Control and dominance were. Control of the oil fields (not needed to USE them, but to prevent thier use too soon), dominance of the MidEast nations in airstrike range of the Iraqi airfields we know controlled.<BR/><BR/>Didn't work, did it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-60576713967054438222007-11-16T16:43:00.000-08:002007-11-16T16:43:00.000-08:00Not sure I understand either point.I do not feel b...Not sure I understand either point.<BR/><BR/>I do not feel behooved to grant equal "human" moral status to somebody who systematically denied the humanity - or right to live - of several million people. <BR/><BR/>I should leave Saddam alone because he's human too? That is as absolutist a moral position - and thus just as romantically silly - as ErnieG's proclamation against ALL coercive force. in principle. Yes, humanity needs to keep moving in both directions -- the spread of tolerance and abandonment of coercion. But, ironically, the purists in these matters would deny us our<I> ability</I> to make pragmatic progress. Which starts with the eradication of blatant, murderous monsters.<BR/><BR/>As for the failure of the Enlightenment Experiment, well, such forecasts have been made for a very long time. Read Marx circa 1875. Read Oswald Spengler's DECLINE OF THE WEST circa 1920 (Do it! Go read Spengler and report back! He was HUGE in the wake of WWI!)<BR/><BR/>Read Orwell in the wake of WWII.<BR/><BR/>Ironies abound. e.g. libertarians venomously denouncing FDR, who almost single-handedly prevented the radicalization of the American populace and staved off their rush toward simplistic ideologies of fascism or communism. (A delusion that has commonality with those rightwing bozos who praise the "greatest generation" of the Depression and WWI... yet howl that that generation was stupid for voting for Roosevelt.) <BR/><BR/>Or these modern ignoramuses' total ignorance of the industrial philosphies of Taylor or Henry Ford, whose notion of an enhanced consumer/worker class up-ended all of Marx's assumptions.<BR/><BR/>Not Spengler nor Marx nor Orwell could see the possibility of leaders as mature as George Marshall, because the cynical temperament cannot abide such an image. The notion that pragmatic men, well-gorunded in basic decency, might negotiate better conditions for all, in a spirit of willing progress.<BR/><BR/>Dig it, we still have EVERYTHING that we need, in order for the Enlightenment to thrive as never before. A highly educated world population, empowered by Internet-delivered knowledge and dedicated to problem-solving, could achieve wonders. <BR/><BR/>It is the cynical romantics who do not want this to happen. We are ruled by one set -- a bunch of classic theft-aristocrats. But there are others. This nasty human tendency abounds in all directions, making otherwise smart people doctrinaire and unwilling to negotiate.<BR/><BR/>Spengler may only have missed by a century or so.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-56811157684811087882007-11-16T16:39:00.000-08:002007-11-16T16:39:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-89567034481340727472007-11-16T15:32:00.000-08:002007-11-16T15:32:00.000-08:00Well Brin in the interest of helpful criticism, an...Well Brin in the interest of helpful criticism, and getting off this destructive point counter point argument. I would challenge you about calling Sadam a monster it’s dehumanizing and for many reasons I don’t think it helps the debate. He did a slew of immoral things but killing him has solved nothing, and seems to have made it worse. Sadly he was a human and I imagine that large portion of Humanity would like to imitate him if they could get away with it. <BR/><BR/>I would like to see a debate about if both the GOP and Democrats are decedents of a liberal tradition. One that while fantastically appealing and successful seems to be falling apart after 200 years when applied to government structures. The fact that our nation expelled all the Tory and the beginning of our first war should make it a short one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-40365700455638055572007-11-16T14:05:00.000-08:002007-11-16T14:05:00.000-08:00Ignoring the fact that all of Europe (except Russi...Ignoring the fact that all of Europe (except Russia) reveres the man that gave them peace for the first time in 4,000 years. <BR/><BR/>Only a moron would keep bringing up Somalia when the real comparison is the vastly more important Balkans. You KNOW that is the comparison. And theres are NO qualities of Balkans vs Iraq in which Clinton does not come out better, by orders of magnitude.<BR/><BR/>As for Saddam, if I were given half a trillion dollars - or indeed half a billion - to kill him, I could have. You could have. And saved the US taxpayer a trillion dollars in the process. <BR/><BR/>You wave and screech. But try REFUTING. The generals and admirals all respected Clinton (some of them grudgingly). <BR/><BR/>They nearly all hate and despise Bush with a red-hot livid passion.<BR/><BR/>There is your fundamental. Screech about Somalia all you want (has Bush fixed it?) But the fundamental is that he's destroying America, as we speak. And people with brains instead of dogma can see it.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-87982320850347298542007-11-16T13:58:00.000-08:002007-11-16T13:58:00.000-08:00>with opponents of the Iraq War perceiving all the...>with opponents of the Iraq War perceiving all the strategic failures<BR/><BR/><I>"Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln"</I><BR/><BR/>Carl von Clausewitz was indeed right. And by now, it should be plainly obvious to anyone that the real reason (i.e., political motivation) that Bush went into Iraq was to get Saddam. And he succeeded. I will never forget the US military reaction when it was announced they'd caught him. Some almost literally jumped for joy. They'd succeeded in their war aims. (Besides the fact they'd also completely destroyed the Iraqi Army) George W. Bush won the war.<BR/><BR/>And please, spare me another utterly biased and pointless lecture on what a great military leader Bill "The Tale of Sir Robin" was. The other night on the History Channel, I saw a couple of toothless Somalian thugs bragging about how they scared off the mighty US military. <B>That's</B> the legacy of Bill Clinton as military commander.<BR/><BR/>-panzerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-64859931424547447622007-11-16T12:57:00.000-08:002007-11-16T12:57:00.000-08:00Zorgon, ouch! It is one thing for me to waste my ...Zorgon, ouch! It is one thing for me to waste my time posting long missives on my site. But you are spending your lifespan posting long screeds on another man’s COMMENTS section. You’d be better off making your own blog and then clipping in “best of” summaries here, with active links to your main wisdom.<BR/><BR/>Having said that, I have only time to dash a quick response to a couple of your statements.<BR/><BR/>I totally agree that today’s corporations are horrible distortions in which a few hundred golf buddies vote each other onto corporate boards in order to steal billions from stockholders while delivering leadership that is no better than any other group of a few hundred narrow, secretive men would deliver. Say, government bureaucrats or kings. For sollusive aristocrats to claim they are inherently good decision-makers, just because they chant catechisms of capitalism - while destroying markets - is astonishingly hypocritical and destructive of the very thing they claim to believe in.<BR/><BR/>To understand this, just type the following into a Google search:<BR/><B>“GAR Guided Allocation of Resources”</B><BR/><BR/>But, yet again, you miss the point. These rapacious SOBs are ENEMIES of markets! They are the very same force - aristocratic oligarchism - that demolished markets throughout history. <BR/><BR/>Your final sentence was insulting in the extreme. I was forecasting and praising Open Source (e.g. in EARTH) while you were still sucking at the socialist teat. Your portrayal of my motives only shows ignorance and willful stupidity, unworthy of you. <BR/><BR/>Consider the possibility that you might be mistaken and driven to unfairness out of reflex, hot anger.<BR/><BR/>Hawker, as usual, is wise. But Hawker, here is a case where Zorgon has a point. Nobody has ever, ever offered an explanation for what happened, when the USA simply gave the Internet away to the world. It was the single most selfless and bizarely farsighted act that any of us have ever witnessed.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-18631446391802549532007-11-16T12:27:00.000-08:002007-11-16T12:27:00.000-08:00Given how much help the Government gave the railro...Given how much help the Government gave the railroads (landgrants, right of ways, eminent domain siezing lands, sweetheart deals, etc) one could argue it was done by the government with a capitalist partner.<BR/><BR/>The internet is a classic example of 'unintended consequences' in technology. A system for communicating between military units post nuclear war adapted to direct mail advertising, bypassing local blue laws, and babling about socio-political trends... tell one of the Generals who wanted it that what would happen to Arpanet, and he'd think you were insane.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com