Before I discovered soulstrut, I used to post on the NYtimes message board... I really tried to engage the conservatives on there, but it seemed like 99% of them just wanted to hurl invectives and insults and revisit talking points that had already been disproven or debunked.
I've never seen such childlike behavior among adults as I did there. Good to see someone's still carrying the banner!
Dude, I agree with you on this issue. But why do you say conservatives "revisit talking points." The implication is that anyone who does not tout the liberal line is incapable of independent thought.
No, that's exactly the opposite of what I meant... I meant, you know, if you just keep hammering back to some phrase or idea from a press release, without any capacity to discuss the content independently. These kinds of people are all over the political spectrum.
The implication is that anyone who does not tout the liberal line is incapable of independent thought.
Anyone who touts an entrenched, intractable established "line of thought" is often incapable of independent thought, be it liberal,conservative or moderate. That in itself is the problem.
Before I discovered soulstrut, I used to post on the NYtimes message board... I really tried to engage the conservatives on there, but it seemed like 99% of them just wanted to hurl invectives and insults and revisit talking points that had already been disproven or debunked.
I've never seen such childlike behavior among adults as I did there. Good to see someone's still carrying the banner!
Dude, I agree with you on this issue. But why do you say conservatives "revisit talking points." The implication is that anyone who does not tout the liberal line is incapable of independent thought.
No, that's exactly the opposite of what I meant... I meant, you know, if you just keep hammering back to some phrase or idea from a press release, without any capacity to discuss the content independently. These kinds of people are all over the political spectrum.
or if you just criticize endlessly without ever offering an alternative solution, things like that.
its like this, when all people ever post is in the negative. "this is bad, this is wrong, this is stupid." what's to debate? I don't need to argue that "no its right," because thats the way it already is, whats the point in arguing it something I've already won.
The government couldn't act on the terrorist threats because governmental beurocracy prevented the domestic agencies from taking action. There already exist processes through which the government can snoop on threats, they require a warrant and such warrants are rarely if ever denied (I think one has been denied since the practice has been in existence). There was plenty of time, with respect to the 9/11 hijackers, to obtain such a warrant and commence to snooping. Governmental incompetence, infighting, and territorialism prevented that from happening. Moreover this country is founded on a system in which no branch of government can or should be able to circumvent the other two, and by that principle the executive HAS to go through the courts and/or the congress. This wartime executive order bullshit is merely a disguise for another one of their grabs for more power in the executive branch.
I don't think the snooping threatens me at all; but I would ask you, do you have many Muslim friends? Because I do, and they are almost all related to someone who does business with someone who banks with a person who works for a company that donated to an organization that at one point made a payment to Hamas. Or have a cousin who hung out with a guy who owned a deli that employed a man who attended a training camp in Pakistan. Do they deserve to be spied on, without heed to the process already established?
We have to live up to our laws, or else what are they for. The President, in all his incompetence, is certainly not better than the law of the land and more importantly does not have the public confidence to pull off such a move. I don't trust this administration to act in my best interests, so I am not at all comfortable with their constant power grabs.
Semantics. Conservative and liberal, left and right can be useful words and independent thinkers may very well reside in those categories. Modern liberals believe that government has an obligation to provide for positive rights for its citizens, whether that be healthcare or college aid. Conservatives tend to believe that businesses should not be regulated. Doves like peace processes. Anarchists hate cops. Libertarians only want the government to provide basic services like roads and a military. Islamic theocrats believe that the state should enforce Sharia law. Communists believe that all property should belong to the state. Nonetheless, one can arrive at these political inclinations through free enquiry, and once identifying oneself as say an agrarian socialist, one can hold a variety of opinions that differ from others within that sect.
Before I discovered soulstrut, I used to post on the NYtimes message board... I really tried to engage the conservatives on there, but it seemed like 99% of them just wanted to hurl invectives and insults and revisit talking points that had already been disproven or debunked.
I've never seen such childlike behavior among adults as I did there. Good to see someone's still carrying the banner!
Dude, I agree with you on this issue. But why do you say conservatives "revisit talking points." The implication is that anyone who does not tout the liberal line is incapable of independent thought.
No, that's exactly the opposite of what I meant... I meant, you know, if you just keep hammering back to some phrase or idea from a press release, without any capacity to discuss the content independently. These kinds of people are all over the political spectrum.
or if you just criticize endlessly without ever offering an alternative solution, things like that.
its like this, when all people ever post is in the negative. "this is bad, this is wrong, this is stupid." what's to debate? I don't need to argue that "no its right," because thats the way it already is, whats the point in arguing it something I've already won.
In this case, the argument is not that a different action should have been taken, the argument is that the initial action should not have been taken at all.
Btw, it being "the way it is" does not make it right; thankfully, quite a few folks in the world still see arguing relative rights and wrongs as being worthwhile.
Islamic theocrats believe that the state should enforce Sharia law. Nonetheless, one can hold a variety of opinions that differ from others within that sect.
Is this really true??? From what I've read there is no "wiggle room" on this one?? Educate me differently.
Islamic theocrats believe that the state should enforce Sharia law. Nonetheless, one can hold a variety of opinions that differ from others within that sect.
Is this really true??? From what I've read there is no "wiggle room" on this one?? Educate me differently.
Shouldn't we be mistrustful of what we read? How do you know what you were reading wasn't overly slanted to a particular political view?
why take any action, when you can just hide out in your room and listen to records all day, just relaxing, maybe have a beer, drive to the mall.
What action are you recommending I take? I am tasked with running a record store, feeding myself, loving my friends & family. Not running the country.
I am saying that the President should not have made an executive order to allow unwarranted wiretaps on American citizens. While I'm sure it's fun to blow off steam while you're studying, I'd appreciate it if you respond to the arguments being made.
Islamic theocrats believe that the state should enforce Sharia law. Nonetheless, one can hold a variety of opinions that differ from others within that sect.
Is this really true??? From what I've read there is no "wiggle room" on this one?? Educate me differently.
Shouldn't we be mistrustful of what we read? How do you know what you were reading wasn't overly slanted to a particular political view?
Islamic theocrats believe that the state should enforce Sharia law. Nonetheless, one can hold a variety of opinions that differ from others within that sect.
Is this really true??? From what I've read there is no "wiggle room" on this one?? Educate me differently.
Shouldn't we be mistrustful of what we read? How do you know what you were reading wasn't overly slanted to a particular political view?
Islamic theocrats believe that the state should enforce Sharia law. Nonetheless, one can hold a variety of opinions that differ from others within that sect.
Is this really true??? From what I've read there is no "wiggle room" on this one?? Educate me differently.
Islamic theocrats have debates all the time about whether non-Muslims should be forced to go to Muslim courts; what sharia law actually says; whether clerics or legislators should have the final say on whether a bill becomes a law; the manner and timing of Israel destruction; whether the UN is an appropriate authority; whether there should be elections; whether Islamists should participate in the elections.
I interviewed the politburo chief of the muslim brothers here who told me that he did not want to create a seperate council to overrule the parliament, but there are other muslim brothers who seek exactly that in Egypt. Some mullahs in iran support the opposition because they think that clerics have no place in government at all. That the very mixing mosque and state is unislamic. Deeper debate than is often portrayed.
Islamic theocrats believe that the state should enforce Sharia law. Nonetheless, one can hold a variety of opinions that differ from others within that sect.
Is this really true??? From what I've read there is no "wiggle room" on this one?? Educate me differently.
Shouldn't we be mistrustful of what we read? How do you know what you were reading wasn't overly slanted to a particular political view?
That's why I'm asking
And BTW.......there are volumes to be read on every topic that weren't created by "the media"
why take any action, when you can just hide out in your room and listen to records all day, just relaxing, maybe have a beer, drive to the mall.
What action are you recommending I take? I am tasked with running a record store, feeding myself, loving my friends & family. Not running the country.
I am saying that the President should not have made an executive order to allow unwarranted wiretaps on American citizens. While I'm sure it's fun to blow off steam while you're studying, I'd appreciate it if you respond to the arguments being made.
okay, ill bite. My understanding is that it is not clear that the action was unconstitutional. People assume there are much stronger protections to privacy in the Constitution than actually exist. The NYT printedd that story on the same day that ... oh what do you know , the author of the story has a book coming out, I wonder who the publisher of that book could be? I find everything that paper does and I'm really not concerned with the potential wiretapping of 100 or even a thousand people. You know what you can do on a slippery slope - sometimes you stop.
okay, ill bite. My understanding is that it is not clear that the action was unconstitutional. People assume there are much stronger protections to privacy in the Constitution than actually exist. The NYT printedd that story on the same day that ... oh what do you know , the author of the story has a book coming out, I wonder who the publisher of that book could be? I find everything that paper does and I'm really not concerned with the potential wiretapping of 100 or even a thousand people. You know what you can do on a slippery slope - sometimes you stop.
1) So does the government have to go to a judge to get a search warrant or wire tap or not? The President claims that as commander and chief in war he does not have to do this.
2) In the 1970s the Congress imposed rules on the National Security Agency that it cannot monitor calls made by American citizens within the U.S. because Pres. Nixon had them doing that. President Bush says that as commander and chief in the war on terror, these rules do not apply.
3) The special court set up to deal with these issues has only rejected 5 requests for wire taps or searches since 1979. The government can go to the court and retroactively ask to authorize the wire tap. President Bush says that as the executive he does not have to follow this procedure.
4) When has the government or a beauracracy ever voluntarily given up power? History would say that when people get power they usually want more. The history of the Bush admininstration is that the Justice Department and the Vice President's office says that the president can do anything when it comes to the war on terror. The president can determine what is a legitimate government or not. If they're not a legitimate government then the U.S. can hold their people as enemy combantants rather than POWs. The president can determine what international laws the U.S. has to follow and which they don't such as international laws on torture, which the U.S. has signed. The president can determine how long enemy combantants can be held. The president can decide to send enemy combatants to foreign countries to be tortured, etc. Now the president can decide when to follow domestic rules on wire taps and due process.
5) You say that you find most of these conversations as useless because they're just bitching about what's wrong instead of offering solutions. The solution to this situation is simple. Bush should follow the law. All he has to do is go to the special court for these wire taps if they involve terrorism and he's refused to do it.
okay, ill bite. My understanding is that it is not clear that the action was unconstitutional. People assume there are much stronger protections to privacy in the Constitution than actually exist. The NYT printedd that story on the same day that ... oh what do you know , the author of the story has a book coming out, I wonder who the publisher of that book could be? I find everything that paper does and I'm really not concerned with the potential wiretapping of 100 or even a thousand people. You know what you can do on a slippery slope - sometimes you stop.
1) So does the government have to go to a judge to get a search warrant or wire tap or not? The President claims that as commander and chief in war he does not have to do this.
2) In the 1970s the Congress imposed rules on the National Security Agency that it cannot monitor calls made by American citizens within the U.S. because Pres. Nixon had them doing that. President Bush says that as commander and chief in the war on terror, these rules do not apply.
3) The special court set up to deal with these issues has only rejected 5 requests for wire taps or searches since 1979. The government can go to the court and retroactively ask to authorize the wire tap. President Bush says that as the executive he does not have to follow this procedure.
4) When has the government or a beauracracy ever voluntarily given up power? History would say that when people get power they usually want more. The history of the Bush admininstration is that the Justice Department and the Vice President's office says that the president can do anything when it comes to the war on terror. The president can determine what is a legitimate government or not. If they're not a legitimate government then the U.S. can hold their people as enemy combantants rather than POWs. The president can determine what international laws the U.S. has to follow and which they don't such as international laws on torture, which the U.S. has signed. The president can determine how long enemy combantants can be held. The president can decide to send enemy combatants to foreign countries to be tortured, etc. Now the president can decide when to follow domestic rules on wire taps and due process.
5) You say that you find most of these conversations as useless because they're just bitching about what's wrong instead of offering solutions. The solution to this situation is simple. Bush should follow the law. All he has to do is go to the special court for these wire taps if they involve terrorism and he's refused to do it.
As much as I understand where folks like Rockadelic are coming from and that none of this seems or should come as any great surprise, it's the fact that Bush continually maintains that LAWS and RESTRICTIONS that have affected every administration since the 70s simply do not apply (because he says they don't) that I find so distressing. And while it does not surprise me at all that he takes this position, it appalls me that so many Americans think it's OK, and that the Dems don't seem to have the nads to do any more than piss and moan on CNN. Where are their teeth on obvious legal transgressions like this? Simply amazing.
As much as I understand where folks like Rockadelic are coming from and that none of this seems or should come as any great surprise, it's the fact that Bush continually maintains that LAWS and RESTRICTIONS that have affected every administration since the 70s simply do not apply (because he says they don't) that I find so distressing. And while it does not surprise me at all that he takes this position, it appalls me that so many Americans think it's OK, and that the Dems don't seem to have the nads to do any more than piss and moan on CNN. Where are their teeth on obvious legal transgressions like this? Simply amazing.
Listen, as you can read on page 2, I agree with the liberal wing of the strutland insofar as there should be FISA court warrants, at least issued de facto, for this kind of surveillance. But the president did not simply take the power to spy on phone calls of al qaeda and suspected al qaeda affiliates inside America to overseas. He renews the program every 45 days, has briefed the chairman and vice chairman of the intel committees and house leadership on the program a dozen times. And he justifies this through his powers to defend the country in a time of war.
I think it's worth having a debate about what all of those powers should be in war time. And I think it's important to remember the context of when these decisions were made. I remember a year and a half ago, many of you all were asking why the president did not enact Richard Clarke's Dellenda plan during the 9-11 commission hearings. Have you read the Dellenda plan? It calls for the president to authorize assasinations through predator drones of our enemies in Afghanistan and the secret funding of the northern alliance to beat back al-Qaeda. In peace time a president who would sign off on such a thing would be exposed to extraordinary scrutiny in the press and Congress. The plan violates international law, it would likely have bypassed Congressional budgetary authorities. But in war, people demand the president take extraordinary powers. These powers in the past have included the suspension of the writ of habeus corpus, the internment of Japanese citizens, authorization of domestic spying programs that far exceed the scope of this NSA program, a national draft, etc... This is not to say all of those things were necessary decisions; but do we talk about FDR as a dictator intent on destroying the constitution because of his shameful policy on the Japanese; or do we remember him as the guy who defeated the Nazis. Also, keep in mind that it was Clinton's NSA that developed the echelon program that to this day reads emails based on data mining programs that search out key words and make no distinction between Americans and non-Americans.
My point here is that it is a mistake to fall into the trap of approaching all of this in such a manichean way.
or if you just criticize endlessly without ever offering an alternative solution, things like that.
Hmmm...who does that remind me of?
reminds me of this.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 18 /U.S. Newswire/ ??? House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement tonight in response to President Bush???s speech on Iraq:
???Tonight the President acknowledged more of the mistakes he has made in Iraq, but he still does not get it. Iraq did not present an imminent threat to the security of the United States before he began his war of choice. The President???s speech tonight was further evidence that after almost three years, he still does not understand that crucial fact.
???President Bush persists in pursuing a flawed policy that has not made the American people safer nor made the Middle East more secure. It is time for a new direction in Iraq ??? not more of the same."
I think a lot of folks would seriously question just what it means to be "in war time." We are MAKING war but that's not the same with being AT war, at least not in the conventional sense. This is rehashing points that have been made since 9/11: can you be at war with a state-less enemy? And if so, how do you know you've "won"? You can't really sign an armistice with Al Qaeda and in the current climate, it seems that "peace" can only mean the cessation of not just hostility but THREATS which, as I think many would agree, seems rather impossible. Given that, when will America ever NOT be at war? And following that, when is it ok for the President to quit wielding executive privilege as an imperial scepter?
I think a lot of folks would seriously question just what it means to be "in war time." We are MAKING war but that's not the same with being AT war, at least not in the conventional sense. This is rehashing points that have been made since 9/11: can you be at war with a state-less enemy? And if so, how do you know you've "won"? You can't really sign an armistice with Al Qaeda and in the current climate, it seems that "peace" can only mean the cessation of not just hostility but THREATS which, as I think many would agree, seems rather impossible. Given that, when will America ever NOT be at war? And following that, when is it ok for the President to quit wielding executive privilege as an imperial scepter?
O,
I actually agree with a lot of this. I think the president has done a terrible job in laying out the terms of victory. He has said either we win when we feel safe, or we win when there are no more threats. I would prefer a clearer matrix, not to mention a clearer definition of the enemy (enemies). FDR defeated national socialism by declaring war on the axis powers, but he did not declare war on the concept of national socialism, just as Reagen declared war on the evil empire, not communism, and Lincoln declared war on the confederacy not slavery. The problem with wars with abstractions is that we have no way of knowing when we've won.
But I think it's far fetched to say we are not at war. I mean al-Qaeda has not only attacked our towers, but the subways in London, the trains in Madrid, the banks of Istanbul, hotels in Kuala Lumpur and Bali. This makes no mention of how al-Qaeda alligned governments made war on everyone with the misfortune to live under them, or the sinister role these killers have played in Iraq.
I don't think it's unreasonable to suspend some civil liberties and empower the arsenals of democracy to do what we can to destroy not just al-Qaeda, but all of those who have mixed the ascetic Islam of Salafism with the a perverse call for jihad. They have proven that there is no negotiating with them, and more important why would we? What is there to negotiate? How liberal would it be to divide the map between dar al Islam and dar al Harb, and say treat women however you please in your area? Particularly, since the vast vast majority of Muslims think these people are totally nuts.
Here is some good news. After spending some time in Egypt, traveling to Zarqawi's home town in Jordan and checking out Gaza in the last two months, I can say this. Many devout Muslims will lay down their arms if offered a chance to participate in a fair election and government. The Muslim brothers here waged a nonviolent, and in many ways liberal campaign, in November. Iraqi islamic parties are now participaitng in the government in Baghdad. And in Zarqa, I found that even the former neighbors and imam of Zarqawi's childhood mosque had rejected his jihad after the attacks on the three hotels in Amman. So maybe, just as we in America, are losing our nerve to prevail over these nihilists, the Muslim world is finding its spine.
I hear what you're saying and you nail the issue on its head: we're fighting with an IDEA as much as a flesh-and-blood enemy and again, you can't negotiate with an idea, you can't sign a peace treaty. You can't defeat an idea through force of arms. What you can hope for - which is what I think you're pointing out - is that the idea loses its power and appeal. However, hammering it into submission is not going to diminish its power.
And while we're at this, not to start up this whole shit again: I know you feel like it was right to go into Iraq to take down Sadaam at the very least but do you think said action has improved the "war on terror" or made it worse?
Comments
No, that's exactly the opposite of what I meant... I meant, you know, if you just keep hammering back to some phrase or idea from a press release, without any capacity to discuss the content independently. These kinds of people are all over the political spectrum.
Anyone who touts an entrenched, intractable established "line of thought" is often incapable of independent thought, be it liberal,conservative or moderate. That in itself is the problem.
or if you just criticize endlessly without ever offering an alternative solution, things like that.
its like this, when all people ever post is in the negative. "this is bad, this is wrong, this is stupid." what's to debate? I don't need to argue that "no its right," because thats the way it already is, whats the point in arguing it something I've already won.
Hmmm...who does that remind me of?
damn man that was very eloquent.
In this case, the argument is not that a different action should have been taken, the argument is that the initial action should not have been taken at all.
Btw, it being "the way it is" does not make it right; thankfully, quite a few folks in the world still see arguing relative rights and wrongs as being worthwhile.
Is this really true??? From what I've read there is no "wiggle room" on this one??
Educate me differently.
Shouldn't we be mistrustful of what we read? How do you know what you were reading wasn't overly slanted to a particular political view?
What action are you recommending I take? I am tasked with running a record store, feeding myself, loving my friends & family. Not running the country.
I am saying that the President should not have made an executive order to allow unwarranted wiretaps on American citizens. While I'm sure it's fun to blow off steam while you're studying, I'd appreciate it if you respond to the arguments being made.
zoing
Cross pollination of threads
That's why I'm asking
Islamic theocrats have debates all the time about whether non-Muslims should be forced to go to Muslim courts; what sharia law actually says; whether clerics or legislators should have the final say on whether a bill becomes a law; the manner and timing of Israel destruction; whether the UN is an appropriate authority; whether there should be elections; whether Islamists should participate in the elections.
I interviewed the politburo chief of the muslim brothers here who told me that he did not want to create a seperate council to overrule the parliament, but there are other muslim brothers who seek exactly that in Egypt. Some mullahs in iran support the opposition because they think that clerics have no place in government at all. That the very mixing mosque and state is unislamic. Deeper debate than is often portrayed.
And BTW.......there are volumes to be read on every topic that weren't created by "the media"
okay, ill bite. My understanding is that it is not clear that the action was unconstitutional. People assume there are much stronger protections to privacy in the Constitution than actually exist. The NYT printedd that story on the same day that ... oh what do you know , the author of the story has a book coming out, I wonder who the publisher of that book could be? I find everything that paper does
that's "erie."
we haven't gotten to that yet, but I still get it.
interpleader =
"so necessary"
Agreed but the fact that you're even putting "the media" in quotations, is pretty
1) So does the government have to go to a judge to get a search warrant or wire tap or not? The President claims that as commander and chief in war he does not have to do this.
2) In the 1970s the Congress imposed rules on the National Security Agency that it cannot monitor calls made by American citizens within the U.S. because Pres. Nixon had them doing that. President Bush says that as commander and chief in the war on terror, these rules do not apply.
3) The special court set up to deal with these issues has only rejected 5 requests for wire taps or searches since 1979. The government can go to the court and retroactively ask to authorize the wire tap. President Bush says that as the executive he does not have to follow this procedure.
4) When has the government or a beauracracy ever voluntarily given up power? History would say that when people get power they usually want more. The history of the Bush admininstration is that the Justice Department and the Vice President's office says that the president can do anything when it comes to the war on terror. The president can determine what is a legitimate government or not. If they're not a legitimate government then the U.S. can hold their people as enemy combantants rather than POWs. The president can determine what international laws the U.S. has to follow and which they don't such as international laws on torture, which the U.S. has signed. The president can determine how long enemy combantants can be held. The president can decide to send enemy combatants to foreign countries to be tortured, etc. Now the president can decide when to follow domestic rules on wire taps and due process.
5) You say that you find most of these conversations as useless because they're just bitching about what's wrong instead of offering solutions. The solution to this situation is simple. Bush should follow the law. All he has to do is go to the special court for these wire taps if they involve terrorism and he's refused to do it.
As much as I understand where folks like Rockadelic are coming from and that none of this seems or should come as any great surprise, it's the fact that Bush continually maintains that LAWS and RESTRICTIONS that have affected every administration since the 70s simply do not apply (because he says they don't) that I find so distressing. And while it does not surprise me at all that he takes this position, it appalls me that so many Americans think it's OK, and that the Dems don't seem to have the nads to do any more than piss and moan on CNN. Where are their teeth on obvious legal transgressions like this? Simply amazing.
Listen, as you can read on page 2, I agree with the liberal wing of the strutland insofar as there should be FISA court warrants, at least issued de facto, for this kind of surveillance. But the president did not simply take the power to spy on phone calls of al qaeda and suspected al qaeda affiliates inside America to overseas. He renews the program every 45 days, has briefed the chairman and vice chairman of the intel committees and house leadership on the program a dozen times. And he justifies this through his powers to defend the country in a time of war.
I think it's worth having a debate about what all of those powers should be in war time. And I think it's important to remember the context of when these decisions were made. I remember a year and a half ago, many of you all were asking why the president did not enact Richard Clarke's Dellenda plan during the 9-11 commission hearings. Have you read the Dellenda plan? It calls for the president to authorize assasinations through predator drones of our enemies in Afghanistan and the secret funding of the northern alliance to beat back al-Qaeda. In peace time a president who would sign off on such a thing would be exposed to extraordinary scrutiny in the press and Congress. The plan violates international law, it would likely have bypassed Congressional budgetary authorities. But in war, people demand the president take extraordinary powers. These powers in the past have included the suspension of the writ of habeus corpus, the internment of Japanese citizens, authorization of domestic spying programs that far exceed the scope of this NSA program, a national draft, etc... This is not to say all of those things were necessary decisions; but do we talk about FDR as a dictator intent on destroying the constitution because of his shameful policy on the Japanese; or do we remember him as the guy who defeated the Nazis. Also, keep in mind that it was Clinton's NSA that developed the echelon program that to this day reads emails based on data mining programs that search out key words and make no distinction between Americans and non-Americans.
My point here is that it is a mistake to fall into the trap of approaching all of this in such a manichean way.
reminds me of this.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 18 /U.S. Newswire/ ??? House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement tonight in response to President Bush???s speech on Iraq:
???Tonight the President acknowledged more of the mistakes he has made in Iraq, but he still does not get it. Iraq did not present an imminent threat to the security of the United States before he began his war of choice. The President???s speech tonight was further evidence that after almost three years, he still does not understand that crucial fact.
???President Bush persists in pursuing a flawed policy that has not made the American people safer nor made the Middle East more secure. It is time for a new direction in Iraq ??? not more of the same."
I think a lot of folks would seriously question just what it means to be "in war time." We are MAKING war but that's not the same with being AT war, at least not in the conventional sense. This is rehashing points that have been made since 9/11: can you be at war with a state-less enemy? And if so, how do you know you've "won"? You can't really sign an armistice with Al Qaeda and in the current climate, it seems that "peace" can only mean the cessation of not just hostility but THREATS which, as I think many would agree, seems rather impossible. Given that, when will America ever NOT be at war? And following that, when is it ok for the President to quit wielding executive privilege as an imperial scepter?
the number of years you go without a plane being flown into another NYC building works for me.
Not done studying for your exam yet?
Seriously though, what does that mean except for glib rhetoric? So...basically, we've been winning the last four years? Why isn't the war over then?
i think my answer is quite palpable. I can't answer when we'll win, the Israelis have been fightig this war for a long time.
O,
I actually agree with a lot of this. I think the president has done a terrible job in laying out the terms of victory. He has said either we win when we feel safe, or we win when there are no more threats. I would prefer a clearer matrix, not to mention a clearer definition of the enemy (enemies). FDR defeated national socialism by declaring war on the axis powers, but he did not declare war on the concept of national socialism, just as Reagen declared war on the evil empire, not communism, and Lincoln declared war on the confederacy not slavery. The problem with wars with abstractions is that we have no way of knowing when we've won.
But I think it's far fetched to say we are not at war. I mean al-Qaeda has not only attacked our towers, but the subways in London, the trains in Madrid, the banks of Istanbul, hotels in Kuala Lumpur and Bali. This makes no mention of how al-Qaeda alligned governments made war on everyone with the misfortune to live under them, or the sinister role these killers have played in Iraq.
I don't think it's unreasonable to suspend some civil liberties and empower the arsenals of democracy to do what we can to destroy not just al-Qaeda, but all of those who have mixed the ascetic Islam of Salafism with the a perverse call for jihad. They have proven that there is no negotiating with them, and more important why would we? What is there to negotiate? How liberal would it be to divide the map between dar al Islam and dar al Harb, and say treat women however you please in your area? Particularly, since the vast vast majority of Muslims think these people are totally nuts.
Here is some good news. After spending some time in Egypt, traveling to Zarqawi's home town in Jordan and checking out Gaza in the last two months, I can say this. Many devout Muslims will lay down their arms if offered a chance to participate in a fair election and government. The Muslim brothers here waged a nonviolent, and in many ways liberal campaign, in November. Iraqi islamic parties are now participaitng in the government in Baghdad. And in Zarqa, I found that even the former neighbors and imam of Zarqawi's childhood mosque had rejected his jihad after the attacks on the three hotels in Amman. So maybe, just as we in America, are losing our nerve to prevail over these nihilists, the Muslim world is finding its spine.
I hear what you're saying and you nail the issue on its head: we're fighting with an IDEA as much as a flesh-and-blood enemy and again, you can't negotiate with an idea, you can't sign a peace treaty. You can't defeat an idea through force of arms. What you can hope for - which is what I think you're pointing out - is that the idea loses its power and appeal. However, hammering it into submission is not going to diminish its power.
And while we're at this, not to start up this whole shit again: I know you feel like it was right to go into Iraq to take down Sadaam at the very least but do you think said action has improved the "war on terror" or made it worse?