[zk]

“can we just give it a rest for 6 bloody months were they do the JOB they’re currently elected for?”

Well, if that’s what you were trying to say, then I agree with you. I think that the campaign process lasts much too long and, more importantly, takes too much time away from running the country and costs too much money.

But your “cult of personality” comment was typical of the “bash the other side” approach that Karl Rove has made so prevalent in today’s America. I say “America” rather than “American politics” because it seems to me that that mind set has started to permeate our culture in general.

sdnativeson, you’re right, his voting record is liberal. But that doesn’t contradict what I said, which is that he’s willing to reach across the aisle and reasonably debate and discuss issues with those who are opposite him ideologically. As opposed to calling them coke sniffers and otherwise attacking them personally.

The responses to this post sum up perfectly what I’d like to see changed about this country. And what I hope Obama will change. We’ve become a nation of people who interact through attacks and manipulation of emotion rather than calm, reasoned discourse. And, worse, we’ve become a nation that thinks that this is an acceptable way to interact. It’s time to start thinking about what’s best for our country and not what’s the best way to attack the other side. And, in my opinion, no one is more fit to affect that change than Barack Obama.

[zk]

Thanks, PC.

Actually, let’s pass around this email address instead:

[email protected]

The . in the other email address (between the 3 and the 1) is easy to miss and leave out.

NSR, I’ll have a response to your post when I have time after work.

[zk]

jg,

I don’t know which is more amazing: your hypocrisy or your failure to see that your hypocrisy is blatantly obvious and that your attempts to put down your fellow posters only reflect badly on yourself.

Your style of debate is consistently confrontational and condescending. You mock your fellow posters by sarcastically calling them “tough and brilliant.” Then you imply that they wouldn’t measure up on your destroyer (when you know next to nothing about them or their toughness). Then, in the same post, you claim to have more decency than them.

While we’re at it, I’d be interested in what fine distinction you make between calling someone “wild-eyed” and calling someone a “nut job” that you can do the former and consider yourself “decent,” while someone who does the latter isn’t decent.

I don’t see any decency about you at all. I just see a silly clown who hopes that a condescending attitude and a lot of bravado can overcome a lack of intellect.

[zk]

zk, it’s not possible to leave Iraq to the Iraqis – much of the violence is instigated by Iran, which you agree is a powerful and dangerous theocracy.

Ok then. Do you think 30,000 more troops will be enough? If so, why? If not, how many? If it’s another 300,000, and we have to reinstate the draft and spend trillions more, is that what you want to do? Before we decide whether to leave Iraq to the Iraqis, I think we should decide what it’s going to cost not to leave it to them and compare that to the cost of leaving it to them. (That’s the kind of thinking we should have done with clear eyes before we went in in the first place. But it’s too late for that now.)

“You had cited the level of violence in Iraq as evidence that I am wrong to think the war could head off a larger conflict; to then ask why I’m worried about a larger conflict given the sectarian violence is incoherent.”

I didn’t say, “given sectarian violence.” What I said was, “if most violent islamic strife is one muslim faction vs another (quoting you saying that most violent Islamic strife is one muslim faction against another), then why are you worried about a fullscale civilizational war with islam? Won’t they just be fighting each other?” Note that I said, “If.” The if being: “if, according to your argument.” You said that bush’s war in Iraq could head off full scale war. And then you said “Most of the violent Islamic strife is one Muslim faction vs another. To the extent Muslim savagery turns inward, it turns away from us.” So yes, it is incoherent to say on the one hand that we should be afraid of full scale war and then on the other hand say that most violent Islamic strife is one faction against the other. But that incoherence is yours, not mine.

“The best case result from the invasion would be to help Iraq become a beachhead of liberalism in the Arab world, something that could be a source of Muslim pride without being a threat to us.”

That kind of attempt to project American culture and ideas on middle eastern culture is a huge part of the problem we’ve had in trying to change the middle east. What makes you think a beachhead of liberalism would be a source of pride for them? And, really, you’re happy with a war in which 3,000 Americans were killed and trillions were spent and in which the best case outcome is muslim pride that isn’t a threat to us?

“That was the President’s goal, and it’s a laudable one.”

If that was the president’s goal, then he should’ve told congress and the American people that that was his goal before we let him send our kids off to die. Maybe we wouldn’t have let him.

“You want to focus on al Qaeda? They’re in Iraq.”

That’s true. They are in Iraq now that we’ve opened that country up to them. So far not much of a beachhead for liberalism or pride. Just a beachhead for al qaeda. Again, that’s in the past. We could’ve not attacked Iraq, and focused on al qaeda (which wasn’t in Iraq then and still wouldn’t be if it wasn’t for bush) in 2002-2006, but we screwed that up. Time to move on. So, like I said, we need to take a clear look – not the ever-optimistic “bush” look – at what our options are. And we need to decide whether 30k troops is enough. And if it’s not, either don’t send them (withdraw) or send more. Over-optimistic thinking has been as large a part of the bush problem as his emphasis on loyalty over competence, his refusal to listen to advice, his surrounding of himself with those who agree with him, his refusal to see his mistakes, his politics of fear, his separation from reality, and his general ineptitude. And I sure hope (like I hope I win the lottery) that he can start looking at things clearly now, before more Americans die from his failures.

“Finally, if you’re going to criticize others for making statements without evidence, you should avoid claims about things like Sistani’s pre-invasion importance and the religiosity of Iraqi Shia unless you have a summer home in Najaf you haven’t told us about.”

Now, that’s just plain silly. We all rely on things other than personal observations to make judgements. You yourself said, “The one where Ayatollah Sistani has so much clout?” How do you know that? And besides, I didn’t criticize sdnativeson for making a statement without evidence. In fact, I didn’t even criticize him. What I said was, “You’re certainly entitled to that opinion, but stated with no reasons or substantiation, it’s meaningless.” I wasn’t asking for evidence. Just reasons. They’re different.

[zk]

Having a dictator wanting to add allahu akbar to the flag is a symbolic gesture that really means nothing. Ayatollah Sistani’s clout was not huge before we invaded, and grew enormously after we invaded. Turkey…well, if you count that as part of the middle east, you might be right about that one. Lebanon may be 30% christian, but that number doesn’t, in my opinion, mean that Lebanon’s contribution to islamic strife was less than pre-invasion Iraq’s. And while Iranians my have grown disenchanted with their theocracy, their theocracy is still powerful and dangerous. So despite your reasonable counterpoints, I don’t think I’m overstating my case. But even if I am, even if Iraq wasn’t strictly the very least islamic country in the middle east, my point remains valid: islam plays a much greater role there now than it did before we invaded, and we have increased the danger that Iraq’s muslims present by many times.

“Most of the violent Islamic strife is one Muslim faction vs another. To the extent Muslim savagery turns inward, it turns away from us. Islamic aggression against the US has been growing for 30 years.”

“Thanks for trying to forestall a fullscale civilizational war with Islam by setting up the first representative government in the history of the Arab world, Mr President!”

It seems to me there are some contradictions between those two statements. Islamic aggression against the US has been growing for 30 years, and you want to thank the president for making them angrier at us than ever while accomplishing nothing? And if most violent islamic strife is one muslim faction vs another, then why are you worried about a fullscale civilizational war with islam? Won’t they just be fighting each other? And seriously, do you think we’re farther away from fullscale civilizational war with islam now than we were before we invaded Iraq?

How would I suggest stopping it? All I, personally, can do is vote for somebody who will attempt to go forward in the middle east using foresight, reason, deep thought, rigorous planning and preparation, and intelligence. Sort of the opposite of how bush did it. I don’t know who that will be yet in the presidential race in 2008. But I like Barack Obama. I’ve always liked McCain, but he’s a bit too loyal to bush for my taste. Hillary is a loser. Ditto Kerry. I don’t know much about Guliani yet.

Anyway, to really answer your question about how to stop it, I don’t know. Although I’m pretty sure that if I had access to all the information and advice that bush has access to (not that he ever appears to listen to any advice), I’d probably have a few ideas. As it is, my ideas would be to focus our resouces on Al Qaeda. Oh, the money and lives we’ve wasted on Iraq that we could’ve spent wisely on Al Qaeda. I know, that’s in the past. But it’s in the future, too, at least with bush as president it is. What we’re doing in Iraq right now isn’t working. Whether a troop surge will work remains to be seen. But doesn’t there have to be a point at which you say, “anything short of all-out, American-led martial law will not work to stop the violence. So let’s either implement that law at the expense of reimplementing the draft and spending trillions more, or let’s leave Iraq to the Iraqis and let them sink or swim.” I mean, is another 30,000 troops enough? I don’t know. Like I said, I only have limited information. Is it possible for a nation with the culture of Iraq’s to have a functioning, stable representative government? I doubt it. But again, I don’t have enough information to really make that call. My fear is that the man who does have the information is the same man that has consistently made the wrong decisions where Iraq is concerned.

[zk]

“B. Clinton whom, to me, is a traitor to our country.”

You’re certainly entitled to that opinion, but stated with no reasons or substantiation, it’s meaningless.

“No one forsaw the current situation in Iraq.”

That’s not true. The following quote is from George Bush (the smart one), 1998:

“Extending the war into Iraq would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Exceeding the U.N.’s mandate would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.”

[zk]

bgates:

“Thanks for trying to forestall a fullscale civilizational war with Islam by setting up the first representative government in the history of the Arab world, Mr President!”

Setting up a representative government? Where? When? Surely you don’t mean Iraq. That country’s government can’t even protect its people, let alone represent them.

“trying to forestall a fullscale civilizational war with Islam.”

By invading the least Islamic nation in the middle east and turning it into the middle east nation with the most violent Islamic strife? By angering most of the muslims in the world by attacking Iraq? By creating an outlaw land that is a perfect place to recruit, train, develop and turn loose on the world islamic terrorists? Sounds to me like he vastly increased the potential for fullscale civilizational war with Islam.

[zk]

Come on, PS, are you serious?

I only watched the first couple minutes of that video before it lost all credibility. The man-in-the-street interview videos are obviously faked. And just because the guy claims to be a republican, and therefore “should” want to debunk a conspiracy theory, you give his video more credibility? The logic and standard of proof that led you to that conclusion is no different from the rest of the logic and standard of proof that supports the conspiracy theory. Which is to say extraordinarily lame.

My impression that conspiracy theorists are engaging in confirmation bias has only been strengthened after watching this thread develop. Solid evidence contrary to your theory is ignored. And solid evidence that discounts what scant evidence that does create doubt on the official story is also ignored.

You’ve asked us to be open minded about the conspiracy theory. I’ve been open minded, but haven’t seen anything but hysteria backing up the conspiracy claim. Now, how about you be open minded and take a look at the psychology of conspiracy theorists and see if it doesn’t apply to you.

[zk]

That link to the downing of AAL587 is a joke. There are too many errors and falsehoods to count. (But don’t tell that to conspiracy theorists; they won’t listen.)

I don’t have time (or care enough) to refute each one of them, but I will shed some light on one part that I’m more or less an expert on: Having read quite a few NTSB reports about quite a few aviation accidents, I know that eyewitnesses to aviation accidents are extremely unreliable. Even eyewitnesses who are pilots routinely give differing accounts of the same accident. And people with no knowledge of aviation usually see (or hear) things that just aren’t there and miss rather obvious things that are. These errors occur whether a Cessna 150 buys a farm in Podunk, Canada or an Airbus falls out of the sky over New York City. And I’m pretty sure terrorists aren’t targeting Cessnas in Saskatchewan.

[zk]

From a pretty interesting Wikipedia article on conspiracy theories:

“Conspiratorial accounts can be emotionally satisfying when they place events in a readily-understandable, moral context. The subscriber to the theory is able to assign moral responsibility for an emotionally troubling event or situation to a clearly-conceived group of individuals. Crucially, that group does not include the believer. The believer may then feel excused of any moral or political responsibility for remedying whatever institutional or societal flaw might be the actual source of the dissonance.”

There’s more in the article on the psychological and socio-political origins of conspiracy theories. True believers might want to read that article see if they don’t see themselves there. If you can take a hard look at yourself, maybe you’ll see the world a little more clearly. If you can’t take a hard, honest look at yourself, you most likely never will.

[zk]

“Perhaps my cynical nature and high level of skepticism make me susceptible to conspiracy theories but I believe the story our government is telling us about 9/11 is mostly fabrication.”

If you are truly skeptical, you should be less susceptible to conspiracy theories, not more. For most of the conspiracy theories that are out there to be true, thousands of people would all have to keep giant secrets. Any amount of skepticism should keep you from believing that such a thing could happen.

“Anyone who believes the official story is a blithering idiot.”

Heavyduty follows that not-very-well-thought-out statement with equally well-thought-out arguments and documentation backing up his position.

People who believe conspiracy theories generally believe them for the same reason people believe that housing won’t go down: they want to believe them, and they therefore engage in confirmation bias. They’ll ignore overwhelming evidence that their theories are not true, and focus on the scant evidence that supports their case. Then they’ll ignore that evidence that refutes the scant evidence that supports their case.

Why would anyone want to believe these theories? Perhaps it makes them feel smart. “All these blithering idiots believe this story. I must be smarter than them.” Or maybe they like the adrenalin rush they get from their world view. “Holy shit!! WE knocked the towers down!!!” Maybe they’re super-left wing nuts who’d really like to discredit the neocons. Maybe they’re super-right wing nuts who want to discredit our entire government (our entire system of government.

“Powayseller, pay no attention to that nonsensical, unresearched crap KEWP just posted, he or she doesnt know what they’re talking about. He doesnt know “shinola” about architecture and demolition. Probably some programmer sitting in his cubicle postulating on the web when he should be working for his boss.”

Powayseller, pay no attention to LOB’s rhetoric. It contains no information or logic or reason or facts or evidence whatsoever. Sure, maybe 50% of the people in this country polled by USA Today do believe there was a conspiracy. But don’t forget that half the people in this country have IQs of less than 100, also (probably the same half that reads USA Today). None of that is any evidence of a conspiracy.

I despise the neocons much more than your average person. But to say that they planned and executed 9/11 and then covered it up gives them way too little credit for humanness and way too much credit for cleverness.

[zk]

Lulu,

Obviously you didn’t sign any papers. So if you had any obligation to him it would be a moral one. But I’d say you don’t have any obligation to him, not even a moral one. Buying a house is a gigantic financial transaction, and if you think his bad attitude (or other shortcomings) would get in the way of representing you as well as possible and cost you money (and I’d say there’s a good chance they would), then find somebody else.

Sure, he showed you a house. But you didn’t know then that he had a bad attitude. Now you know that. So if he asks you why you went with somebody else (which he may), then just tell him the truth.

[zk]

Just thought I’d post something here to move it up to the top and remind everyone that the meetup is this Saturday.

Juice, love your “Presidents should be masters of intellectual curiosity and firm in their convictions that are borne of arduous debate and re-examination” type stuff. Always good to have a guy who can think on board. Hope you can make it.

Deadzone, we agree on a lot. Hope you’ll be there.

PD, we don’t agree on hardly anything (political), hope you can make it.

Jg, I don’t really care if you come or not. I’m just kidding! It’ll be fun to meet you; you’ve obviously got your share of personality. You know, lots of my friends are republicans; some of them seem like they might even be as fanatical about it as you, jg. I don’t really know for sure, though, because we generally avoid talking more than briefly and superficially about politics. It’s a good thing not to let politics get in the way of friendships. Especially for you, jg, now that hardly anybody agrees with you any more. 😉

Anyway, hope to see lots of you there!

[zk]

Funny how year-over-year price is all that matters until the yoy is down 5.5% and the month to month is up. Then the headline (SDUT) is “County housing prices rise slightly.” Nowhere in that article was the 5.5% year-over-year price drop even mentioned. Yeah, they’re not biased.

[zk]

“Are the republicans pointing their fingers at the democrats saying everything is their fault?”

Well, PD, you seem to be saying that everything (that is, not winning in Iraq, which is pretty much everything) is the liberal media’s and people like PC’s fault:

“We haven’t won in Iraq because our policy has been “niced up” in an attempt to appease people like PerryChase and the liberal press”

And you seem pretty anxious to avoid placing any blame:

“Whether or not we should have invaded is now moot. We are there. Since we don’t have a time machine, we need to be looking forward. What should we do now?”

So I guess my question should have been:

Why do you find the democrats’ finger pointing and anxious desire to deny any responsibility appalling, but you don’t find your own finger pointing and anxious desire to deny the republicans’ responsibility appalling?

[Author]

Posts