by Ugh
Meh.
When is the presidential election again? 10.5 months you say? Gah.
2015, a meh year. Here's hoping 2016 is better, insha'Allah.
"This was the voice of moderation until 13 Sept, 2025"
"This was the voice of moderation until 13 Sept, 2025"
by Ugh
Meh.
When is the presidential election again? 10.5 months you say? Gah.
2015, a meh year. Here's hoping 2016 is better, insha'Allah.
This might be awesome though.
This is awful.
This makes me want to punch people in the face. Makes an interesting legal issue though.
This might be awesome though.
This is awful.
This makes me want to punch people in the face. Makes an interesting legal issue though.
This might be awesome though.
This is awful.
This makes me want to punch people in the face. Makes an interesting legal issue though.
Ugh’s last link has this
The lawsuit is “typical of our culture,” said Jonathan Darnel of Northern Virginia, another protester included in the lawsuit. “We blame the messenger instead of the message. They should be filing a lawsuit against Planned Parenthood for moving in there and building this place next to their school.”
Ugh’s last link has this
The lawsuit is “typical of our culture,” said Jonathan Darnel of Northern Virginia, another protester included in the lawsuit. “We blame the messenger instead of the message. They should be filing a lawsuit against Planned Parenthood for moving in there and building this place next to their school.”
Ugh’s last link has this
The lawsuit is “typical of our culture,” said Jonathan Darnel of Northern Virginia, another protester included in the lawsuit. “We blame the messenger instead of the message. They should be filing a lawsuit against Planned Parenthood for moving in there and building this place next to their school.”
People who deliberately use children as pawns in their protests are beneath contempt. And the way the protesters are doing so (shoving graphic images in the faces of little kids) is especially so. I have to wonder what their reaction would be to people shoving graphic images (say of children dying of starvation) in the faces of their kids>
A restraining order, requiring the protesters to cease and desist, seems like the least that should happen.
People who deliberately use children as pawns in their protests are beneath contempt. And the way the protesters are doing so (shoving graphic images in the faces of little kids) is especially so. I have to wonder what their reaction would be to people shoving graphic images (say of children dying of starvation) in the faces of their kids>
A restraining order, requiring the protesters to cease and desist, seems like the least that should happen.
People who deliberately use children as pawns in their protests are beneath contempt. And the way the protesters are doing so (shoving graphic images in the faces of little kids) is especially so. I have to wonder what their reaction would be to people shoving graphic images (say of children dying of starvation) in the faces of their kids>
A restraining order, requiring the protesters to cease and desist, seems like the least that should happen.
Or shoving graphic images of gunshot wounds…
But to change the subject to self-aggrandizement: I wrote a book which I submitted to Kirkus Review for a Review. I was hoping to get a mildly positive review, but got instead a starred review, Indy Book of the Month, and ,y book is now on the list of best of 2015 (of books reviewed by Kirkus),]
Not bad for someone who never learned to type!
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/search/?q=the+dog+thief&t=all
Thank you for letting me brag here.
Or shoving graphic images of gunshot wounds…
But to change the subject to self-aggrandizement: I wrote a book which I submitted to Kirkus Review for a Review. I was hoping to get a mildly positive review, but got instead a starred review, Indy Book of the Month, and ,y book is now on the list of best of 2015 (of books reviewed by Kirkus),]
Not bad for someone who never learned to type!
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/search/?q=the+dog+thief&t=all
Thank you for letting me brag here.
Or shoving graphic images of gunshot wounds…
But to change the subject to self-aggrandizement: I wrote a book which I submitted to Kirkus Review for a Review. I was hoping to get a mildly positive review, but got instead a starred review, Indy Book of the Month, and ,y book is now on the list of best of 2015 (of books reviewed by Kirkus),]
Not bad for someone who never learned to type!
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/search/?q=the+dog+thief&t=all
Thank you for letting me brag here.
right on wonkie!!!
right on wonkie!!!
right on wonkie!!!
Solid 5 stars on Amazon, too, wonkie. Congrats!
Solid 5 stars on Amazon, too, wonkie. Congrats!
Solid 5 stars on Amazon, too, wonkie. Congrats!
Well that’s five stars from the five friends and relatives who have read it!
Well that’s five stars from the five friends and relatives who have read it!
Well that’s five stars from the five friends and relatives who have read it!
The longest journey begins with a single step.
The longest journey begins with a single step.
The longest journey begins with a single step.
Justified brag, I think.
I note from the link that the Carl the Rottweiler books still seem to be going strong.
Quite charming, but one of the more surreal experiences visiting US bookstores with young kids; Rottweilers being seen as notoriously dangerous dogs in the UK, particularly around infants…
five stars from the five friends and relatives who have read it!
We should all be so lucky in the judgment of our relatives and friends.
🙂
Justified brag, I think.
I note from the link that the Carl the Rottweiler books still seem to be going strong.
Quite charming, but one of the more surreal experiences visiting US bookstores with young kids; Rottweilers being seen as notoriously dangerous dogs in the UK, particularly around infants…
five stars from the five friends and relatives who have read it!
We should all be so lucky in the judgment of our relatives and friends.
🙂
Justified brag, I think.
I note from the link that the Carl the Rottweiler books still seem to be going strong.
Quite charming, but one of the more surreal experiences visiting US bookstores with young kids; Rottweilers being seen as notoriously dangerous dogs in the UK, particularly around infants…
five stars from the five friends and relatives who have read it!
We should all be so lucky in the judgment of our relatives and friends.
🙂
I am still waiting for Hollywood to beat down my door to get the movie rights for my own Viking age epic (although I think a miniseries would be more suitable). 😉
I am still waiting for Hollywood to beat down my door to get the movie rights for my own Viking age epic (although I think a miniseries would be more suitable). 😉
I am still waiting for Hollywood to beat down my door to get the movie rights for my own Viking age epic (although I think a miniseries would be more suitable). 😉
Congrats, Wonkie!
Congrats, Wonkie!
Congrats, Wonkie!
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/world/middleeast/saudi-led-war-in-yemen-frays-ties-with-the-us.html?ref=world&_r=0
So now the US government is starting to express open discomfort for how the Saudis are blowing up children in a US-supported war in Yemen. Does this mean that Saudi child-killing can be considered morally equivalent to the acts of some other child killers in the region, or do we have to wait for our government to go further?
Sarcasm aside, the US is actively and knowingly engaged in supporting war criminals and yet this is a page 10 issue in the NYT, which reflects the fact that in our political culture there is almost no interest in our responsibility for war crimes. We might as well be stepping on ants.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/world/middleeast/saudi-led-war-in-yemen-frays-ties-with-the-us.html?ref=world&_r=0
So now the US government is starting to express open discomfort for how the Saudis are blowing up children in a US-supported war in Yemen. Does this mean that Saudi child-killing can be considered morally equivalent to the acts of some other child killers in the region, or do we have to wait for our government to go further?
Sarcasm aside, the US is actively and knowingly engaged in supporting war criminals and yet this is a page 10 issue in the NYT, which reflects the fact that in our political culture there is almost no interest in our responsibility for war crimes. We might as well be stepping on ants.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/world/middleeast/saudi-led-war-in-yemen-frays-ties-with-the-us.html?ref=world&_r=0
So now the US government is starting to express open discomfort for how the Saudis are blowing up children in a US-supported war in Yemen. Does this mean that Saudi child-killing can be considered morally equivalent to the acts of some other child killers in the region, or do we have to wait for our government to go further?
Sarcasm aside, the US is actively and knowingly engaged in supporting war criminals and yet this is a page 10 issue in the NYT, which reflects the fact that in our political culture there is almost no interest in our responsibility for war crimes. We might as well be stepping on ants.
Note in the link how a man at the Council on Foreign Relations says the US is worried about being linked to the atrocities–he clearly isn’t talking about the US political scene.
Note in the link how a man at the Council on Foreign Relations says the US is worried about being linked to the atrocities–he clearly isn’t talking about the US political scene.
Note in the link how a man at the Council on Foreign Relations says the US is worried about being linked to the atrocities–he clearly isn’t talking about the US political scene.
Interesting NYT article on nuclear war target lists and attitudes about carpet bombing. In the cellulose edition it is right next to the article about war crimes n Yemen.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/us/politics/1950s-us-nuclear-target-list-offers-chilling-insight.html?ref=world
Interesting NYT article on nuclear war target lists and attitudes about carpet bombing. In the cellulose edition it is right next to the article about war crimes n Yemen.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/us/politics/1950s-us-nuclear-target-list-offers-chilling-insight.html?ref=world
Interesting NYT article on nuclear war target lists and attitudes about carpet bombing. In the cellulose edition it is right next to the article about war crimes n Yemen.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/us/politics/1950s-us-nuclear-target-list-offers-chilling-insight.html?ref=world
That out of the way–congratulations wonkie.
That out of the way–congratulations wonkie.
That out of the way–congratulations wonkie.
Liberal democracies such as the United States face an acute dilemma in the conduct of foreign relations. Many states around the world are repressive or corrupt to varying degrees. Unfortunately, American national interests require cooperation with such regimes from time to time. To defeat Nazi Germany during World War II, the United States even allied with the Soviet Union, despite the barbarity of Josef Stalin’s regime.
[…]
Perilous Partners: The Benefits and Pitfalls of America’s Alliances with Authoritarian Regimes
Liberal democracies such as the United States face an acute dilemma in the conduct of foreign relations. Many states around the world are repressive or corrupt to varying degrees. Unfortunately, American national interests require cooperation with such regimes from time to time. To defeat Nazi Germany during World War II, the United States even allied with the Soviet Union, despite the barbarity of Josef Stalin’s regime.
[…]
Perilous Partners: The Benefits and Pitfalls of America’s Alliances with Authoritarian Regimes
Liberal democracies such as the United States face an acute dilemma in the conduct of foreign relations. Many states around the world are repressive or corrupt to varying degrees. Unfortunately, American national interests require cooperation with such regimes from time to time. To defeat Nazi Germany during World War II, the United States even allied with the Soviet Union, despite the barbarity of Josef Stalin’s regime.
[…]
Perilous Partners: The Benefits and Pitfalls of America’s Alliances with Authoritarian Regimes
wonkie, congrats!
wonkie, congrats!
wonkie, congrats!
Sometime you come across stuff of universal application in the most esoteric of discussions…
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/12/sigma-35mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-lens-teardown
Knowledgeable people always explain stuff I don’t understand in the comments section. Less knowledgeable people explain stuff they don’t understand in the comments section. Sometimes it’s hard to tell which is which, though…
Sometime you come across stuff of universal application in the most esoteric of discussions…
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/12/sigma-35mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-lens-teardown
Knowledgeable people always explain stuff I don’t understand in the comments section. Less knowledgeable people explain stuff they don’t understand in the comments section. Sometimes it’s hard to tell which is which, though…
Sometime you come across stuff of universal application in the most esoteric of discussions…
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/12/sigma-35mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-lens-teardown
Knowledgeable people always explain stuff I don’t understand in the comments section. Less knowledgeable people explain stuff they don’t understand in the comments section. Sometimes it’s hard to tell which is which, though…
Less knowledgeable people explain stuff they don’t understand…
Every once in a while we get lucky.
Less knowledgeable people explain stuff they don’t understand…
Every once in a while we get lucky.
Less knowledgeable people explain stuff they don’t understand…
Every once in a while we get lucky.
I( hope everyone enjoys their holiday season, what ever you celebrate. I just realized that I have been reading this blog for twelve years. I don’t know if I should be depressed about that or not.
I( hope everyone enjoys their holiday season, what ever you celebrate. I just realized that I have been reading this blog for twelve years. I don’t know if I should be depressed about that or not.
I( hope everyone enjoys their holiday season, what ever you celebrate. I just realized that I have been reading this blog for twelve years. I don’t know if I should be depressed about that or not.
Congrats wonkie!
And God Bless us each and everyone:
http://news.yahoo.com/beatles-songs-set-streaming-christmas-001819448.html
Congrats wonkie!
And God Bless us each and everyone:
http://news.yahoo.com/beatles-songs-set-streaming-christmas-001819448.html
Congrats wonkie!
And God Bless us each and everyone:
http://news.yahoo.com/beatles-songs-set-streaming-christmas-001819448.html
a US-supported war in Yemen
DJ, are we actually supporting that war? That is, actively doing something to help?
Or are we just not criticizing it? Or even, until now, the way it is being waged?
I have the feeling (long before this, actually) that we tend to see any military activity by an ally as somehow something that we are supporting. But a lot of the time we seem to be uninvolved.** So I’m never sure what kind of “support” we are seen as providing.
** Granted, we aren’t necessarily in a position to see everything. For example, I have seen something about the US having made (secret) plans to lend/give the UK a replacement ship if they lost one in the Falklands War. In which we were, officially, neutral. But that’s still a ways from actually taking action in support.
a US-supported war in Yemen
DJ, are we actually supporting that war? That is, actively doing something to help?
Or are we just not criticizing it? Or even, until now, the way it is being waged?
I have the feeling (long before this, actually) that we tend to see any military activity by an ally as somehow something that we are supporting. But a lot of the time we seem to be uninvolved.** So I’m never sure what kind of “support” we are seen as providing.
** Granted, we aren’t necessarily in a position to see everything. For example, I have seen something about the US having made (secret) plans to lend/give the UK a replacement ship if they lost one in the Falklands War. In which we were, officially, neutral. But that’s still a ways from actually taking action in support.
a US-supported war in Yemen
DJ, are we actually supporting that war? That is, actively doing something to help?
Or are we just not criticizing it? Or even, until now, the way it is being waged?
I have the feeling (long before this, actually) that we tend to see any military activity by an ally as somehow something that we are supporting. But a lot of the time we seem to be uninvolved.** So I’m never sure what kind of “support” we are seen as providing.
** Granted, we aren’t necessarily in a position to see everything. For example, I have seen something about the US having made (secret) plans to lend/give the UK a replacement ship if they lost one in the Falklands War. In which we were, officially, neutral. But that’s still a ways from actually taking action in support.
You go, wonkie!
You go, wonkie!
You go, wonkie!
Something I hadn’t realized about Evenwel v. Abbott (the Supreme Court case from Texas about who gets counted for redistricting). If the plaintiffs win, Texas will be able to only count those who are eligible to vote (i.e. adult citizens) when drawing districts.
But suppose that same rule gets used for allocating Congressional representatives between the states? Would states which have lots of children in their population (for example, Texas) be subject to losing a representative or two? Does anyone happen to know if that issue was even raised in the case at hand?
Something I hadn’t realized about Evenwel v. Abbott (the Supreme Court case from Texas about who gets counted for redistricting). If the plaintiffs win, Texas will be able to only count those who are eligible to vote (i.e. adult citizens) when drawing districts.
But suppose that same rule gets used for allocating Congressional representatives between the states? Would states which have lots of children in their population (for example, Texas) be subject to losing a representative or two? Does anyone happen to know if that issue was even raised in the case at hand?
Something I hadn’t realized about Evenwel v. Abbott (the Supreme Court case from Texas about who gets counted for redistricting). If the plaintiffs win, Texas will be able to only count those who are eligible to vote (i.e. adult citizens) when drawing districts.
But suppose that same rule gets used for allocating Congressional representatives between the states? Would states which have lots of children in their population (for example, Texas) be subject to losing a representative or two? Does anyone happen to know if that issue was even raised in the case at hand?
wj,
See Art. 1, Section 2 of US Constitution (as amended).
And merry Christmas to all.
wj,
See Art. 1, Section 2 of US Constitution (as amended).
And merry Christmas to all.
wj,
See Art. 1, Section 2 of US Constitution (as amended).
And merry Christmas to all.
Bobby, I thought of that. But I don’t see a way to square counting “all free persons” (i.e. including children, illegal aliens, etc.) for that purpose and then not counting all of them when allocating representatives.
Perhaps the Justices will manage to come up with something. But it seems to me that it would have to be d*mn convoluted reasoning.
Bobby, I thought of that. But I don’t see a way to square counting “all free persons” (i.e. including children, illegal aliens, etc.) for that purpose and then not counting all of them when allocating representatives.
Perhaps the Justices will manage to come up with something. But it seems to me that it would have to be d*mn convoluted reasoning.
Bobby, I thought of that. But I don’t see a way to square counting “all free persons” (i.e. including children, illegal aliens, etc.) for that purpose and then not counting all of them when allocating representatives.
Perhaps the Justices will manage to come up with something. But it seems to me that it would have to be d*mn convoluted reasoning.
If a Court can come up with a concept such as “equal sovereignty of the states” it can come up with anything.
Therefore “convoluted” does not enter in to it because the underlying concept of “reasoning” has lost all meaning.
If a Court can come up with a concept such as “equal sovereignty of the states” it can come up with anything.
Therefore “convoluted” does not enter in to it because the underlying concept of “reasoning” has lost all meaning.
If a Court can come up with a concept such as “equal sovereignty of the states” it can come up with anything.
Therefore “convoluted” does not enter in to it because the underlying concept of “reasoning” has lost all meaning.
Sure, the Court (or at least some of the Justices) can come up with anything. But it will be interesting to see how those who do justify their position. Whether they are the majority or the minority (or even just a concurring opinion or a seperate dissent).
Sure, the Court (or at least some of the Justices) can come up with anything. But it will be interesting to see how those who do justify their position. Whether they are the majority or the minority (or even just a concurring opinion or a seperate dissent).
Sure, the Court (or at least some of the Justices) can come up with anything. But it will be interesting to see how those who do justify their position. Whether they are the majority or the minority (or even just a concurring opinion or a seperate dissent).
The dude shot and killed an armed intruder (yay!) as well as his brother and housemate (boo!). Extrapolate from this to a lecture hall full of armed students in an active-shooter scenario.
The dude shot and killed an armed intruder (yay!) as well as his brother and housemate (boo!). Extrapolate from this to a lecture hall full of armed students in an active-shooter scenario.
The dude shot and killed an armed intruder (yay!) as well as his brother and housemate (boo!). Extrapolate from this to a lecture hall full of armed students in an active-shooter scenario.
14th Amendment, Section 2:
Never used, although absolutely justified in Jim Crow states, probably because congressional action was required. While it might be a valid basis for a lawsuit, I’d expect that John “lawless” Roberts would give it the same careful analysis that he did for the VRA and 15th Amendment.
14th Amendment, Section 2:
Never used, although absolutely justified in Jim Crow states, probably because congressional action was required. While it might be a valid basis for a lawsuit, I’d expect that John “lawless” Roberts would give it the same careful analysis that he did for the VRA and 15th Amendment.
14th Amendment, Section 2:
Never used, although absolutely justified in Jim Crow states, probably because congressional action was required. While it might be a valid basis for a lawsuit, I’d expect that John “lawless” Roberts would give it the same careful analysis that he did for the VRA and 15th Amendment.
Keeping an open mind on this, but getting the nagging feeling that the election of Trump might not even be necessary…
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/23/uk-imam-ajmal-masroor-us-business-visa-revoked-without-explanation
Keeping an open mind on this, but getting the nagging feeling that the election of Trump might not even be necessary…
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/23/uk-imam-ajmal-masroor-us-business-visa-revoked-without-explanation
Keeping an open mind on this, but getting the nagging feeling that the election of Trump might not even be necessary…
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/23/uk-imam-ajmal-masroor-us-business-visa-revoked-without-explanation
Nigel, in this sort of situation, I’m always inclined to blame incompetence** rather than malice. Certainly we have had long-standing problems with entries on the (secret) No Fly list.
But this is beginning to sound like someone has gotten seriously and deliberately carried away. Especially if it was someone from the embassy.
** And if TSA is involved, that is a really really safe assumption.
Nigel, in this sort of situation, I’m always inclined to blame incompetence** rather than malice. Certainly we have had long-standing problems with entries on the (secret) No Fly list.
But this is beginning to sound like someone has gotten seriously and deliberately carried away. Especially if it was someone from the embassy.
** And if TSA is involved, that is a really really safe assumption.
Nigel, in this sort of situation, I’m always inclined to blame incompetence** rather than malice. Certainly we have had long-standing problems with entries on the (secret) No Fly list.
But this is beginning to sound like someone has gotten seriously and deliberately carried away. Especially if it was someone from the embassy.
** And if TSA is involved, that is a really really safe assumption.
Re Evenwel, I predict that the ruling won’t require states to use something other than total population (allow, yes, but not require). The four liberals won’t vote for that, and I believe that Kennedy won’t vote to toss the current districting plans in all 50 states (especially in an election year). For that matter, I don’t think Roberts would vote to toss them all.
That said, a friend in Texas suggests that the plaintiffs are as eager to take power away from suburban Republicans as they are from urban Democrats. She thinks this is all due to the new water bank Texas established. The purpose of the bank is to fund large water infrastructure projects — with a heavy emphasis on diverting water from rural East Texas to the major urban/suburban centers. The bank legislation was passed by the urban Ds and suburban Rs over the loud objections of the rural Rs.
Re Evenwel, I predict that the ruling won’t require states to use something other than total population (allow, yes, but not require). The four liberals won’t vote for that, and I believe that Kennedy won’t vote to toss the current districting plans in all 50 states (especially in an election year). For that matter, I don’t think Roberts would vote to toss them all.
That said, a friend in Texas suggests that the plaintiffs are as eager to take power away from suburban Republicans as they are from urban Democrats. She thinks this is all due to the new water bank Texas established. The purpose of the bank is to fund large water infrastructure projects — with a heavy emphasis on diverting water from rural East Texas to the major urban/suburban centers. The bank legislation was passed by the urban Ds and suburban Rs over the loud objections of the rural Rs.
Re Evenwel, I predict that the ruling won’t require states to use something other than total population (allow, yes, but not require). The four liberals won’t vote for that, and I believe that Kennedy won’t vote to toss the current districting plans in all 50 states (especially in an election year). For that matter, I don’t think Roberts would vote to toss them all.
That said, a friend in Texas suggests that the plaintiffs are as eager to take power away from suburban Republicans as they are from urban Democrats. She thinks this is all due to the new water bank Texas established. The purpose of the bank is to fund large water infrastructure projects — with a heavy emphasis on diverting water from rural East Texas to the major urban/suburban centers. The bank legislation was passed by the urban Ds and suburban Rs over the loud objections of the rural Rs.
Water wars: So California! (Which will doubtless irritate the Texans if it is pointed out….)
Water wars: So California! (Which will doubtless irritate the Texans if it is pointed out….)
Water wars: So California! (Which will doubtless irritate the Texans if it is pointed out….)
Texas’s water laws are peculiar (which is saying a lot when you consider western water law generally). All surface water is owned by the state, which can allocate as it sees fit. IIRC, during the last drought, the water authorities were putting irrigation-dependent cotton and rice farmers along the lower Colorado River (no, not that Colorado River, the other one) out of business in order to guarantee water for coastal power plants and industrial users in Austin.
Texas’s water laws are peculiar (which is saying a lot when you consider western water law generally). All surface water is owned by the state, which can allocate as it sees fit. IIRC, during the last drought, the water authorities were putting irrigation-dependent cotton and rice farmers along the lower Colorado River (no, not that Colorado River, the other one) out of business in order to guarantee water for coastal power plants and industrial users in Austin.
Texas’s water laws are peculiar (which is saying a lot when you consider western water law generally). All surface water is owned by the state, which can allocate as it sees fit. IIRC, during the last drought, the water authorities were putting irrigation-dependent cotton and rice farmers along the lower Colorado River (no, not that Colorado River, the other one) out of business in order to guarantee water for coastal power plants and industrial users in Austin.
Water wars: So California! (Which will doubtless irritate the Texans if it is pointed out….)
Texas in court with Oklahoma and New Mexico over water, and trying to force the federal government to lean on Mexico to honor Texas’s interpretation of the water provisions in a treaty. Alabama/Florida/Georgia fighting over the Apalachicola River. Georgia in federal court trying to overturn an erroneous state boundary (acknowledged way back when by the surveyor as being inaccurate)so that they can get access to the Tennessee River and divert significant amounts to Atlanta.
As a westerner where water storage and diversion has always been a life-or-death matter, I find them all amusing.
Water wars: So California! (Which will doubtless irritate the Texans if it is pointed out….)
Texas in court with Oklahoma and New Mexico over water, and trying to force the federal government to lean on Mexico to honor Texas’s interpretation of the water provisions in a treaty. Alabama/Florida/Georgia fighting over the Apalachicola River. Georgia in federal court trying to overturn an erroneous state boundary (acknowledged way back when by the surveyor as being inaccurate)so that they can get access to the Tennessee River and divert significant amounts to Atlanta.
As a westerner where water storage and diversion has always been a life-or-death matter, I find them all amusing.
Water wars: So California! (Which will doubtless irritate the Texans if it is pointed out….)
Texas in court with Oklahoma and New Mexico over water, and trying to force the federal government to lean on Mexico to honor Texas’s interpretation of the water provisions in a treaty. Alabama/Florida/Georgia fighting over the Apalachicola River. Georgia in federal court trying to overturn an erroneous state boundary (acknowledged way back when by the surveyor as being inaccurate)so that they can get access to the Tennessee River and divert significant amounts to Atlanta.
As a westerner where water storage and diversion has always been a life-or-death matter, I find them all amusing.
From the linked article, it sounds like State Dept. people that were doing the visa-cancellation & “no you can’t get on the plane”.
Since it was in the UK, I don’t think TSA was involved…and if it was ‘no-fly list’ stuff, it would have happened at check-in, rather than at the gate.
Sounds like a last-minute panic by State, or CIA.
From the linked article, it sounds like State Dept. people that were doing the visa-cancellation & “no you can’t get on the plane”.
Since it was in the UK, I don’t think TSA was involved…and if it was ‘no-fly list’ stuff, it would have happened at check-in, rather than at the gate.
Sounds like a last-minute panic by State, or CIA.
From the linked article, it sounds like State Dept. people that were doing the visa-cancellation & “no you can’t get on the plane”.
Since it was in the UK, I don’t think TSA was involved…and if it was ‘no-fly list’ stuff, it would have happened at check-in, rather than at the gate.
Sounds like a last-minute panic by State, or CIA.
This is why 2016 – and beyond – is going to suck no matter who gets elected:
https://theintercept.com/2015/12/18/beacon-global-strategies/
http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20130903/DEFREG02/309030006/Clinton-Allies-Join-Bush-Alum-Form-New-Consulting-Group
This is why 2016 – and beyond – is going to suck no matter who gets elected:
https://theintercept.com/2015/12/18/beacon-global-strategies/
http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20130903/DEFREG02/309030006/Clinton-Allies-Join-Bush-Alum-Form-New-Consulting-Group
This is why 2016 – and beyond – is going to suck no matter who gets elected:
https://theintercept.com/2015/12/18/beacon-global-strategies/
http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20130903/DEFREG02/309030006/Clinton-Allies-Join-Bush-Alum-Form-New-Consulting-Group
At least the new Star Wars movie was decent…..
At least the new Star Wars movie was decent…..
At least the new Star Wars movie was decent…..
all hail the great J.J. Abrams!
he has restored balance to the franchise!
all hail the great J.J. Abrams!
he has restored balance to the franchise!
all hail the great J.J. Abrams!
he has restored balance to the franchise!
Some thought it was a Lost cause.
Some thought it was a Lost cause.
Some thought it was a Lost cause.
Yes, I walked out of the theater Saturday quite thoroughly happy just to have seen my great childhood love treated with respect. Plus the faint hope of an interracial romance — in Star Wars!
And mucho congratulations wonkie!
And, a Merry Christmas (or other holiday of your choosing) to all!
Yes, I walked out of the theater Saturday quite thoroughly happy just to have seen my great childhood love treated with respect. Plus the faint hope of an interracial romance — in Star Wars!
And mucho congratulations wonkie!
And, a Merry Christmas (or other holiday of your choosing) to all!
Yes, I walked out of the theater Saturday quite thoroughly happy just to have seen my great childhood love treated with respect. Plus the faint hope of an interracial romance — in Star Wars!
And mucho congratulations wonkie!
And, a Merry Christmas (or other holiday of your choosing) to all!
The last scene couldn’t have been more perfect.
The last scene couldn’t have been more perfect.
The last scene couldn’t have been more perfect.
A rather different perspective on the War on Christmas.
I’ve got to say that it makes more sense than the usual rants.
A rather different perspective on the War on Christmas.
I’ve got to say that it makes more sense than the usual rants.
A rather different perspective on the War on Christmas.
I’ve got to say that it makes more sense than the usual rants.
http://www.vox.com/2015/12/24/10660766/star-wars-franchise-reboot-the-prequels
http://www.vox.com/2015/12/24/10660766/star-wars-franchise-reboot-the-prequels
http://www.vox.com/2015/12/24/10660766/star-wars-franchise-reboot-the-prequels
i thought i was looking at Alton Brown, in that last scene
i thought i was looking at Alton Brown, in that last scene
i thought i was looking at Alton Brown, in that last scene
No spoilers, please – haven’t managed to see it yet.
No spoilers, please – haven’t managed to see it yet.
No spoilers, please – haven’t managed to see it yet.
hooray, i’m off to play the glockenspiel!
these are the things that happy holidays are made of.
merry christmas everyone, i hope everybody gets everything they’re dreaming of.
hooray, i’m off to play the glockenspiel!
these are the things that happy holidays are made of.
merry christmas everyone, i hope everybody gets everything they’re dreaming of.
hooray, i’m off to play the glockenspiel!
these are the things that happy holidays are made of.
merry christmas everyone, i hope everybody gets everything they’re dreaming of.
There is a War on Christmas—In the History Books: The holiday has been surprisingly strife-torn since America’s beginning. But today’s controversies don’t begin to compare to the colonial-era ban.
There is a War on Christmas—In the History Books: The holiday has been surprisingly strife-torn since America’s beginning. But today’s controversies don’t begin to compare to the colonial-era ban.
There is a War on Christmas—In the History Books: The holiday has been surprisingly strife-torn since America’s beginning. But today’s controversies don’t begin to compare to the colonial-era ban.
Who invented Christmas? Californians.: The modern holiday was conceived and popularized under swaying palm trees.
Who invented Christmas? Californians.: The modern holiday was conceived and popularized under swaying palm trees.
Who invented Christmas? Californians.: The modern holiday was conceived and popularized under swaying palm trees.
Not to be too politically incorrect or anything, but does anyone else find Christ’s War on War blatantly unAmerican, given current standards?
Those Christmas truces need to go. Nixon had it right (not), according to conservative pagan doctrine, vividly with us today.
Kill. Carpet bomb.
Makes you want to upchuckabee your huckabees.
I’d like David Barton to sit down with the Puritans and see who ended up in the stocks or being burned to death.
Charles, you are a font of found stuff.
A merry and a happy to all.
Not to be too politically incorrect or anything, but does anyone else find Christ’s War on War blatantly unAmerican, given current standards?
Those Christmas truces need to go. Nixon had it right (not), according to conservative pagan doctrine, vividly with us today.
Kill. Carpet bomb.
Makes you want to upchuckabee your huckabees.
I’d like David Barton to sit down with the Puritans and see who ended up in the stocks or being burned to death.
Charles, you are a font of found stuff.
A merry and a happy to all.
Not to be too politically incorrect or anything, but does anyone else find Christ’s War on War blatantly unAmerican, given current standards?
Those Christmas truces need to go. Nixon had it right (not), according to conservative pagan doctrine, vividly with us today.
Kill. Carpet bomb.
Makes you want to upchuckabee your huckabees.
I’d like David Barton to sit down with the Puritans and see who ended up in the stocks or being burned to death.
Charles, you are a font of found stuff.
A merry and a happy to all.
Just because The Count’s comment reminded me of it.
Happy holidays! Isn’t it great that the days are getting longer? (At least for us northern hemispherics.)
Just because The Count’s comment reminded me of it.
Happy holidays! Isn’t it great that the days are getting longer? (At least for us northern hemispherics.)
Just because The Count’s comment reminded me of it.
Happy holidays! Isn’t it great that the days are getting longer? (At least for us northern hemispherics.)
Janie,
Boreocentrist!
Janie,
Boreocentrist!
Janie,
Boreocentrist!
Who invented Christmas? Californians
And we all know the rest.
Penned by a Russian Jewish resident of NYC, apparently longing for the dirty snow of home.
We contain multitudes.
My mind is currently on the duet between (IIRC) Melchior and Amahl’s mother.
Amahl et al is, I think, my favorite of the holiday favorites.
Good night all, and best holidays, whichever ones you celebrate, and however you celebrate them.
Who invented Christmas? Californians
And we all know the rest.
Penned by a Russian Jewish resident of NYC, apparently longing for the dirty snow of home.
We contain multitudes.
My mind is currently on the duet between (IIRC) Melchior and Amahl’s mother.
Amahl et al is, I think, my favorite of the holiday favorites.
Good night all, and best holidays, whichever ones you celebrate, and however you celebrate them.
Who invented Christmas? Californians
And we all know the rest.
Penned by a Russian Jewish resident of NYC, apparently longing for the dirty snow of home.
We contain multitudes.
My mind is currently on the duet between (IIRC) Melchior and Amahl’s mother.
Amahl et al is, I think, my favorite of the holiday favorites.
Good night all, and best holidays, whichever ones you celebrate, and however you celebrate them.
Wj, I believe we’re actually doing stuff to help the Saudis in Yemen. Providing targeting info, refueling jets with our tankers, resupplying the Saudi air force, as well as running interference to prevent accountability for war crimes.
Larison at American Conservative has been very good on this war.
Wj, I believe we’re actually doing stuff to help the Saudis in Yemen. Providing targeting info, refueling jets with our tankers, resupplying the Saudi air force, as well as running interference to prevent accountability for war crimes.
Larison at American Conservative has been very good on this war.
Wj, I believe we’re actually doing stuff to help the Saudis in Yemen. Providing targeting info, refueling jets with our tankers, resupplying the Saudi air force, as well as running interference to prevent accountability for war crimes.
Larison at American Conservative has been very good on this war.
A perspective on 2016, and beyond, to which the west is paying insufficient attention:
http://www.wired.com/2015/11/climate-change-in-india/
A perspective on 2016, and beyond, to which the west is paying insufficient attention:
http://www.wired.com/2015/11/climate-change-in-india/
A perspective on 2016, and beyond, to which the west is paying insufficient attention:
http://www.wired.com/2015/11/climate-change-in-india/
With about 2,400 coal fired power plants being built or in the planning stages around the world, coal is going to be a major energy source for some decades yet.
With about 2,400 coal fired power plants being built or in the planning stages around the world, coal is going to be a major energy source for some decades yet.
With about 2,400 coal fired power plants being built or in the planning stages around the world, coal is going to be a major energy source for some decades yet.
A happier, more peaceful, and more prosperous New Year to all of you, and all of us, and all the world.
A happier, more peaceful, and more prosperous New Year to all of you, and all of us, and all the world.
A happier, more peaceful, and more prosperous New Year to all of you, and all of us, and all the world.
Amahl
Coming, mother.
Amahl
Coming, mother.
Amahl
Coming, mother.
Nigel, that’s a really fascinating article. Thank you for pointing it out. But I was a bit surprised that it doesn’t even mention one enormous reason for India to pay a lot of attention to climate change.
India borders Bangladesh — a country with some 156 million peole (which may be only a percent or two of India’s population, but is still a non-trivial number). Almost half of them live within 10 meters of sea level. Which means that, as the sea level rises due to climate change, there will be a lot of people who lose what little land they have. And that’s before we consider the impact of climate change on the flow of the Ganges and the Brahmaputra.
At least some of those people, quite possibly most of them, are likely to decide that, rather than try to wedge themselves into somewhere else in their already over-crowded country, the prospects look better over the border in India.
That kind of mass immigration, all desperately poor, is something that India is not going to be able to handle easily . . . or at all. And the only way to head it off is to minimize the amount of sea level rise, and the amount of climate change generally.
Nigel, that’s a really fascinating article. Thank you for pointing it out. But I was a bit surprised that it doesn’t even mention one enormous reason for India to pay a lot of attention to climate change.
India borders Bangladesh — a country with some 156 million peole (which may be only a percent or two of India’s population, but is still a non-trivial number). Almost half of them live within 10 meters of sea level. Which means that, as the sea level rises due to climate change, there will be a lot of people who lose what little land they have. And that’s before we consider the impact of climate change on the flow of the Ganges and the Brahmaputra.
At least some of those people, quite possibly most of them, are likely to decide that, rather than try to wedge themselves into somewhere else in their already over-crowded country, the prospects look better over the border in India.
That kind of mass immigration, all desperately poor, is something that India is not going to be able to handle easily . . . or at all. And the only way to head it off is to minimize the amount of sea level rise, and the amount of climate change generally.
Nigel, that’s a really fascinating article. Thank you for pointing it out. But I was a bit surprised that it doesn’t even mention one enormous reason for India to pay a lot of attention to climate change.
India borders Bangladesh — a country with some 156 million peole (which may be only a percent or two of India’s population, but is still a non-trivial number). Almost half of them live within 10 meters of sea level. Which means that, as the sea level rises due to climate change, there will be a lot of people who lose what little land they have. And that’s before we consider the impact of climate change on the flow of the Ganges and the Brahmaputra.
At least some of those people, quite possibly most of them, are likely to decide that, rather than try to wedge themselves into somewhere else in their already over-crowded country, the prospects look better over the border in India.
That kind of mass immigration, all desperately poor, is something that India is not going to be able to handle easily . . . or at all. And the only way to head it off is to minimize the amount of sea level rise, and the amount of climate change generally.
wj — because it strengthens your point, I will nerdily point out that 156 million people is more like 12.5% of India’s population, not “a percent or two.”
wj — because it strengthens your point, I will nerdily point out that 156 million people is more like 12.5% of India’s population, not “a percent or two.”
wj — because it strengthens your point, I will nerdily point out that 156 million people is more like 12.5% of India’s population, not “a percent or two.”
Bangladesh has its own plans for its indigenous coal reserves…
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/03/05/opinion/bangladeshs-coal-delusion.html
Bangladesh has its own plans for its indigenous coal reserves…
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/03/05/opinion/bangladeshs-coal-delusion.html
Bangladesh has its own plans for its indigenous coal reserves…
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/03/05/opinion/bangladeshs-coal-delusion.html
Drat! Dropped a decimal point. Thanks, Janie.
And yes, it not only reinforces the point, it makes it even more suprising that it wasn’t mentioned.
Drat! Dropped a decimal point. Thanks, Janie.
And yes, it not only reinforces the point, it makes it even more suprising that it wasn’t mentioned.
Drat! Dropped a decimal point. Thanks, Janie.
And yes, it not only reinforces the point, it makes it even more suprising that it wasn’t mentioned.
On the mark, Nigel. The developing world needs massive increases in energy, and electricity in particular, to accomplish their goal. Coal has the advantages that power plants burning it are reasonably simple, transporting it requires nothing more complicated than big flat-bottomed ships and trains, and there’s a hell of a lot of it. The developed world has, quite literally, nothing to offer in place of coal in a timely fashion except “stay poor”.
On the mark, Nigel. The developing world needs massive increases in energy, and electricity in particular, to accomplish their goal. Coal has the advantages that power plants burning it are reasonably simple, transporting it requires nothing more complicated than big flat-bottomed ships and trains, and there’s a hell of a lot of it. The developed world has, quite literally, nothing to offer in place of coal in a timely fashion except “stay poor”.
On the mark, Nigel. The developing world needs massive increases in energy, and electricity in particular, to accomplish their goal. Coal has the advantages that power plants burning it are reasonably simple, transporting it requires nothing more complicated than big flat-bottomed ships and trains, and there’s a hell of a lot of it. The developed world has, quite literally, nothing to offer in place of coal in a timely fashion except “stay poor”.
The developing world needs massive increases in energy, and electricity in particular, to accomplish their goal.
And the developed world should assist in a substantial way to attain that goal.
But most likely it will not.
The developing world needs massive increases in energy, and electricity in particular, to accomplish their goal.
And the developed world should assist in a substantial way to attain that goal.
But most likely it will not.
The developing world needs massive increases in energy, and electricity in particular, to accomplish their goal.
And the developed world should assist in a substantial way to attain that goal.
But most likely it will not.
drat….
Thanks, Nigel.
drat….
Thanks, Nigel.
drat….
Thanks, Nigel.
Something some defense people I know are sagely rubbing their chins and nodding thoughtfully about:
Business Insider: Stratfor has 11 chilling predictions for what the world will look like in 10 years
To me it (even the underlying analysis, not just the summary linked above) reads like someone took a group of foreign area experts, had each one make a projection for ten years exclusively for their area, and then pasted them all together into a single report with no overarching analysis or even synthesis between projections. But I’m not an interested amateur when it comes to foreign policy and suchlike, while the chin rubbers do this for a living, so what do I know?
Something some defense people I know are sagely rubbing their chins and nodding thoughtfully about:
Business Insider: Stratfor has 11 chilling predictions for what the world will look like in 10 years
To me it (even the underlying analysis, not just the summary linked above) reads like someone took a group of foreign area experts, had each one make a projection for ten years exclusively for their area, and then pasted them all together into a single report with no overarching analysis or even synthesis between projections. But I’m not an interested amateur when it comes to foreign policy and suchlike, while the chin rubbers do this for a living, so what do I know?
Something some defense people I know are sagely rubbing their chins and nodding thoughtfully about:
Business Insider: Stratfor has 11 chilling predictions for what the world will look like in 10 years
To me it (even the underlying analysis, not just the summary linked above) reads like someone took a group of foreign area experts, had each one make a projection for ten years exclusively for their area, and then pasted them all together into a single report with no overarching analysis or even synthesis between projections. But I’m not an interested amateur when it comes to foreign policy and suchlike, while the chin rubbers do this for a living, so what do I know?
*I’m only an interested amateur…
*I’m only an interested amateur…
*I’m only an interested amateur…
The last one seems less “chilling” to me than simply inevitable. Forward-deployed offensive weapons systems are getting more expensive. Defensive weapons for use against those are getting cheaper. Heck, at the rate the F-35 price keeps going up, the bloody things are going to be too expensive to risk in combat.
The last one seems less “chilling” to me than simply inevitable. Forward-deployed offensive weapons systems are getting more expensive. Defensive weapons for use against those are getting cheaper. Heck, at the rate the F-35 price keeps going up, the bloody things are going to be too expensive to risk in combat.
The last one seems less “chilling” to me than simply inevitable. Forward-deployed offensive weapons systems are getting more expensive. Defensive weapons for use against those are getting cheaper. Heck, at the rate the F-35 price keeps going up, the bloody things are going to be too expensive to risk in combat.
Wj, yes, we are supporting Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen. This was explained in the NYT link I provided above– it was also explained in the link I remember providing in an earlier thread when you asked the same question. We aren’t standing by–we are helping the Saudis as they bomb schools.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/world/middleeast/saudi-led-war-in-yemen-frays-ties-with-the-us.html?ref=topics
There was a brief period under Bush when people in the mainstream spoke about US war crimes as a serious issue, but we are back to normal now, where we either commit them or help others commit them and there is a bipartisan consensus that it doesn’t matter.
Wj, yes, we are supporting Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen. This was explained in the NYT link I provided above– it was also explained in the link I remember providing in an earlier thread when you asked the same question. We aren’t standing by–we are helping the Saudis as they bomb schools.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/world/middleeast/saudi-led-war-in-yemen-frays-ties-with-the-us.html?ref=topics
There was a brief period under Bush when people in the mainstream spoke about US war crimes as a serious issue, but we are back to normal now, where we either commit them or help others commit them and there is a bipartisan consensus that it doesn’t matter.
Wj, yes, we are supporting Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen. This was explained in the NYT link I provided above– it was also explained in the link I remember providing in an earlier thread when you asked the same question. We aren’t standing by–we are helping the Saudis as they bomb schools.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/world/middleeast/saudi-led-war-in-yemen-frays-ties-with-the-us.html?ref=topics
There was a brief period under Bush when people in the mainstream spoke about US war crimes as a serious issue, but we are back to normal now, where we either commit them or help others commit them and there is a bipartisan consensus that it doesn’t matter.
More on the US-supported war crimes in Yemen–
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/27/saudi_arabia_is_obliterating_yemen_with_the_help_of_the_u_s_partner/
More on the US-supported war crimes in Yemen–
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/27/saudi_arabia_is_obliterating_yemen_with_the_help_of_the_u_s_partner/
More on the US-supported war crimes in Yemen–
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/27/saudi_arabia_is_obliterating_yemen_with_the_help_of_the_u_s_partner/
More on the US-supported war crimes in Yemen
Not an expert on Yemen or what is going on there, but I did read that the Houthis are interested in cutting off shipping in the Bab al-Mandab strait, which would rupture the world economy. I get it that such a concern sounds very corporate, but economic collapse affects a lot of people, and often supports right-wing political dictators.
So maybe we should be more assertive in directing the anti-Houthi operations so that listed civilian casualties could be avoided? Maybe we should stay out of it and let the Saudis do the dirty work by themselves (doing what they’re doing now) but we’d have our hands clean, and maybe our interests wouldn’t be successfully served? Nice work avoiding the blame. Or maybe we should do what we’re doing, trying to exert influence, but also trying to make things happen for the good?
What’s your RX, Doctor Donald?
More on the US-supported war crimes in Yemen
Not an expert on Yemen or what is going on there, but I did read that the Houthis are interested in cutting off shipping in the Bab al-Mandab strait, which would rupture the world economy. I get it that such a concern sounds very corporate, but economic collapse affects a lot of people, and often supports right-wing political dictators.
So maybe we should be more assertive in directing the anti-Houthi operations so that listed civilian casualties could be avoided? Maybe we should stay out of it and let the Saudis do the dirty work by themselves (doing what they’re doing now) but we’d have our hands clean, and maybe our interests wouldn’t be successfully served? Nice work avoiding the blame. Or maybe we should do what we’re doing, trying to exert influence, but also trying to make things happen for the good?
What’s your RX, Doctor Donald?
More on the US-supported war crimes in Yemen
Not an expert on Yemen or what is going on there, but I did read that the Houthis are interested in cutting off shipping in the Bab al-Mandab strait, which would rupture the world economy. I get it that such a concern sounds very corporate, but economic collapse affects a lot of people, and often supports right-wing political dictators.
So maybe we should be more assertive in directing the anti-Houthi operations so that listed civilian casualties could be avoided? Maybe we should stay out of it and let the Saudis do the dirty work by themselves (doing what they’re doing now) but we’d have our hands clean, and maybe our interests wouldn’t be successfully served? Nice work avoiding the blame. Or maybe we should do what we’re doing, trying to exert influence, but also trying to make things happen for the good?
What’s your RX, Doctor Donald?
Um, “what we’re doing” is selling arms, providing operational intelligence and support, and sharing targeting information while consulting on target selection – all of which is being used by the dear old House of Saud to commit unambiguous warcrimes alongside old-fashioned merely-ambiguously-criminal indiscriminate strategic bombing.
I do like that – as per usual – the first defense raised is a tu quoque, though. And better still, it’s one invoking a second or fourth-hand assertion about what someone says the Houthis are interested in doing, which obviously serves as a moral counterweight to what our client-state – with our tactical, logistical, and operational support – has been doing, currently is doing, and by all appearances and certainly most ominously, are interested in doing.
Um, “what we’re doing” is selling arms, providing operational intelligence and support, and sharing targeting information while consulting on target selection – all of which is being used by the dear old House of Saud to commit unambiguous warcrimes alongside old-fashioned merely-ambiguously-criminal indiscriminate strategic bombing.
I do like that – as per usual – the first defense raised is a tu quoque, though. And better still, it’s one invoking a second or fourth-hand assertion about what someone says the Houthis are interested in doing, which obviously serves as a moral counterweight to what our client-state – with our tactical, logistical, and operational support – has been doing, currently is doing, and by all appearances and certainly most ominously, are interested in doing.
Um, “what we’re doing” is selling arms, providing operational intelligence and support, and sharing targeting information while consulting on target selection – all of which is being used by the dear old House of Saud to commit unambiguous warcrimes alongside old-fashioned merely-ambiguously-criminal indiscriminate strategic bombing.
I do like that – as per usual – the first defense raised is a tu quoque, though. And better still, it’s one invoking a second or fourth-hand assertion about what someone says the Houthis are interested in doing, which obviously serves as a moral counterweight to what our client-state – with our tactical, logistical, and operational support – has been doing, currently is doing, and by all appearances and certainly most ominously, are interested in doing.
Nombrilisme Vide, what we support seems, in your opinion, always to be the greater of the evils. I’m not sure that’s true. What I’m asking is that you suggest what the alternative would look like. It’s a counterfactual perhaps, and if we let it lie, the blood would be on someone else’s hands. Perfect for us to then absolve ourselves, no matter what was wrought.
Nombrilisme Vide, what we support seems, in your opinion, always to be the greater of the evils. I’m not sure that’s true. What I’m asking is that you suggest what the alternative would look like. It’s a counterfactual perhaps, and if we let it lie, the blood would be on someone else’s hands. Perfect for us to then absolve ourselves, no matter what was wrought.
Nombrilisme Vide, what we support seems, in your opinion, always to be the greater of the evils. I’m not sure that’s true. What I’m asking is that you suggest what the alternative would look like. It’s a counterfactual perhaps, and if we let it lie, the blood would be on someone else’s hands. Perfect for us to then absolve ourselves, no matter what was wrought.
And likewise, whoever we happen to be supporting at the moment seems to be the lesser of evils, or an understandably forgivable/tragically inevitable evil, in your opinion. So the implicit “you don’t think things through, you just have one response to everything” undercurrent is rather toothless coming from you. Especially, again, in this case it’s a matter of your “greater evil” being a hypothetical one versus a well-documented ongoing “lesser evil” by a government with an awful human rights record and the kind of history of exporting, financing, and supporting terrorism that would get it denounced and sanctioned were it not so cozy with us – well, and let’s be honest, also swimming in oil.
In this case, as in most of my simple-minded one-size-fits-all intemperate and ill-considered hypotheticals, what we should do is treat human rights abuses consistently, and not provide diplomatic cover for the perpetrators at the UN and in other venues. We should denounce them, and certainly not continue to provide support for their operations. Again, we’re not just sitting back avoiding censuring the Saudis for their crimes. We’re not just conveniently having other things to do when others try to hold them accountable. We’re providing ongoing logistical and operational support for their military campaign.
You’re portraying this as a well-meaning and tragic choice between greater and lesser evil. It’s not. It’s realpolitik; it’s hypocritical moralizing for a domestic audience to sustain a myth of a city on a hill which has little credibility outside the US, and essentially none outside the global north. Actions like this are not about attacking evils, they’re about maintaining power and influence. So please, save the hand-wringing, tormented moralizing about our noble intentions for the masses who keep their eyes fixed firmly on our domestic navel…
And likewise, whoever we happen to be supporting at the moment seems to be the lesser of evils, or an understandably forgivable/tragically inevitable evil, in your opinion. So the implicit “you don’t think things through, you just have one response to everything” undercurrent is rather toothless coming from you. Especially, again, in this case it’s a matter of your “greater evil” being a hypothetical one versus a well-documented ongoing “lesser evil” by a government with an awful human rights record and the kind of history of exporting, financing, and supporting terrorism that would get it denounced and sanctioned were it not so cozy with us – well, and let’s be honest, also swimming in oil.
In this case, as in most of my simple-minded one-size-fits-all intemperate and ill-considered hypotheticals, what we should do is treat human rights abuses consistently, and not provide diplomatic cover for the perpetrators at the UN and in other venues. We should denounce them, and certainly not continue to provide support for their operations. Again, we’re not just sitting back avoiding censuring the Saudis for their crimes. We’re not just conveniently having other things to do when others try to hold them accountable. We’re providing ongoing logistical and operational support for their military campaign.
You’re portraying this as a well-meaning and tragic choice between greater and lesser evil. It’s not. It’s realpolitik; it’s hypocritical moralizing for a domestic audience to sustain a myth of a city on a hill which has little credibility outside the US, and essentially none outside the global north. Actions like this are not about attacking evils, they’re about maintaining power and influence. So please, save the hand-wringing, tormented moralizing about our noble intentions for the masses who keep their eyes fixed firmly on our domestic navel…
And likewise, whoever we happen to be supporting at the moment seems to be the lesser of evils, or an understandably forgivable/tragically inevitable evil, in your opinion. So the implicit “you don’t think things through, you just have one response to everything” undercurrent is rather toothless coming from you. Especially, again, in this case it’s a matter of your “greater evil” being a hypothetical one versus a well-documented ongoing “lesser evil” by a government with an awful human rights record and the kind of history of exporting, financing, and supporting terrorism that would get it denounced and sanctioned were it not so cozy with us – well, and let’s be honest, also swimming in oil.
In this case, as in most of my simple-minded one-size-fits-all intemperate and ill-considered hypotheticals, what we should do is treat human rights abuses consistently, and not provide diplomatic cover for the perpetrators at the UN and in other venues. We should denounce them, and certainly not continue to provide support for their operations. Again, we’re not just sitting back avoiding censuring the Saudis for their crimes. We’re not just conveniently having other things to do when others try to hold them accountable. We’re providing ongoing logistical and operational support for their military campaign.
You’re portraying this as a well-meaning and tragic choice between greater and lesser evil. It’s not. It’s realpolitik; it’s hypocritical moralizing for a domestic audience to sustain a myth of a city on a hill which has little credibility outside the US, and essentially none outside the global north. Actions like this are not about attacking evils, they’re about maintaining power and influence. So please, save the hand-wringing, tormented moralizing about our noble intentions for the masses who keep their eyes fixed firmly on our domestic navel…
So please, save the hand-wringing, tormented moralizing about our noble intentions for the masses who keep their eyes fixed firmly on our domestic navel…
I’m not the one who’s handwringing, or engaging in tormented moralizing. We elect people, and I’ve never trusted an executive branch in my lifetime as much as the one we currently have. The people who are working on our foreign policy are more knowledgeable than people commenting here, and as high-minded. The scope of foreign policy is huge; our treaty commitments, negotiations for alliances, economic interests, etc. etc. etc. are infinite. It’s difficult to imagine a morally perfect alliance. If we’re isolationists, we can say goodbye to all that. I don’t think that would make the world better, although we could give ourselves a great moral pat on the back.
Saudi Arabia has caused the United States boatloads of trouble (and, at the moment, we could live without its oil). Israel seems nothing but a headache. I’m not a fan of either nation. I trust Obama, John Kerry, Ashon Carter, Samantha Power, and Susan Rice – these aren’t people who have turned a blind eye to human rights. You might better explain what their purpose is if you believe that it is so nefarious. I think that the policy is a lesser of evils.
So please, save the hand-wringing, tormented moralizing about our noble intentions for the masses who keep their eyes fixed firmly on our domestic navel…
I’m not the one who’s handwringing, or engaging in tormented moralizing. We elect people, and I’ve never trusted an executive branch in my lifetime as much as the one we currently have. The people who are working on our foreign policy are more knowledgeable than people commenting here, and as high-minded. The scope of foreign policy is huge; our treaty commitments, negotiations for alliances, economic interests, etc. etc. etc. are infinite. It’s difficult to imagine a morally perfect alliance. If we’re isolationists, we can say goodbye to all that. I don’t think that would make the world better, although we could give ourselves a great moral pat on the back.
Saudi Arabia has caused the United States boatloads of trouble (and, at the moment, we could live without its oil). Israel seems nothing but a headache. I’m not a fan of either nation. I trust Obama, John Kerry, Ashon Carter, Samantha Power, and Susan Rice – these aren’t people who have turned a blind eye to human rights. You might better explain what their purpose is if you believe that it is so nefarious. I think that the policy is a lesser of evils.
So please, save the hand-wringing, tormented moralizing about our noble intentions for the masses who keep their eyes fixed firmly on our domestic navel…
I’m not the one who’s handwringing, or engaging in tormented moralizing. We elect people, and I’ve never trusted an executive branch in my lifetime as much as the one we currently have. The people who are working on our foreign policy are more knowledgeable than people commenting here, and as high-minded. The scope of foreign policy is huge; our treaty commitments, negotiations for alliances, economic interests, etc. etc. etc. are infinite. It’s difficult to imagine a morally perfect alliance. If we’re isolationists, we can say goodbye to all that. I don’t think that would make the world better, although we could give ourselves a great moral pat on the back.
Saudi Arabia has caused the United States boatloads of trouble (and, at the moment, we could live without its oil). Israel seems nothing but a headache. I’m not a fan of either nation. I trust Obama, John Kerry, Ashon Carter, Samantha Power, and Susan Rice – these aren’t people who have turned a blind eye to human rights. You might better explain what their purpose is if you believe that it is so nefarious. I think that the policy is a lesser of evils.
Oh, and by the way, when we become morally upright isolationists, who will fill the vacuum? China. Russia. Please explain how that will improve human rights.
Oh, and by the way, when we become morally upright isolationists, who will fill the vacuum? China. Russia. Please explain how that will improve human rights.
Oh, and by the way, when we become morally upright isolationists, who will fill the vacuum? China. Russia. Please explain how that will improve human rights.
I did read that the Houthis are interested in cutting off shipping in the Bab al-Mandab strait, which would rupture the world economy.
I seem to have missed that report on the Houthis’ goals. Can you point me to a source?
Thanks.
I did read that the Houthis are interested in cutting off shipping in the Bab al-Mandab strait, which would rupture the world economy.
I seem to have missed that report on the Houthis’ goals. Can you point me to a source?
Thanks.
I did read that the Houthis are interested in cutting off shipping in the Bab al-Mandab strait, which would rupture the world economy.
I seem to have missed that report on the Houthis’ goals. Can you point me to a source?
Thanks.
Just to clarify, a Houthis victory might well have a negative effect, albeit indirectly, on the world economy. But not because they might cut off shipping — of oil or anthing else.
The Houthis are a tribe in Yemen which happens to be Shia. Their biggest complaint, at least originally, was the way that they were being treated by the (Sunni) government.
The major motivation for the Saudi intervention (regardless of the official rationale) is this: If the Houthis manage to set up a seperate statelet, it might well motivate the Shia minority in Saudi Arabia (also not well treated by their government) to try the same. And that Shia population happen to be concentrated in the south-east of the Kingdom . . . that is, where the oil fields are.
If the Saudi oil fields are disrupted, the price of oil worldwide jumps. Which predictable impact on the economies of all the countries which import oil. It’s an indirect impact of a possible Houthis success. But no more than that.
Just to clarify, a Houthis victory might well have a negative effect, albeit indirectly, on the world economy. But not because they might cut off shipping — of oil or anthing else.
The Houthis are a tribe in Yemen which happens to be Shia. Their biggest complaint, at least originally, was the way that they were being treated by the (Sunni) government.
The major motivation for the Saudi intervention (regardless of the official rationale) is this: If the Houthis manage to set up a seperate statelet, it might well motivate the Shia minority in Saudi Arabia (also not well treated by their government) to try the same. And that Shia population happen to be concentrated in the south-east of the Kingdom . . . that is, where the oil fields are.
If the Saudi oil fields are disrupted, the price of oil worldwide jumps. Which predictable impact on the economies of all the countries which import oil. It’s an indirect impact of a possible Houthis success. But no more than that.
Just to clarify, a Houthis victory might well have a negative effect, albeit indirectly, on the world economy. But not because they might cut off shipping — of oil or anthing else.
The Houthis are a tribe in Yemen which happens to be Shia. Their biggest complaint, at least originally, was the way that they were being treated by the (Sunni) government.
The major motivation for the Saudi intervention (regardless of the official rationale) is this: If the Houthis manage to set up a seperate statelet, it might well motivate the Shia minority in Saudi Arabia (also not well treated by their government) to try the same. And that Shia population happen to be concentrated in the south-east of the Kingdom . . . that is, where the oil fields are.
If the Saudi oil fields are disrupted, the price of oil worldwide jumps. Which predictable impact on the economies of all the countries which import oil. It’s an indirect impact of a possible Houthis success. But no more than that.
To be fair to sapient, I more or less get where he’s coming from. Foreign policy is difficult, and avowedly moralistic foreign policy doesn’t necessarily result it better outcomes than the realpolitik alternative (one only has to look at how the ‘Arab Spring’ has turned out so far).
A policy which supports order over chaos is at least arguable (not that I’m arguing the Yemen policy is any such thing).
That said, the Saudis are not only morally bankrupt, but have shown a tendency to screw the west since the oil shock they engineered in the 70s. If your interests don’t coincide, why back an obnoxious regime ?
To be fair to sapient, I more or less get where he’s coming from. Foreign policy is difficult, and avowedly moralistic foreign policy doesn’t necessarily result it better outcomes than the realpolitik alternative (one only has to look at how the ‘Arab Spring’ has turned out so far).
A policy which supports order over chaos is at least arguable (not that I’m arguing the Yemen policy is any such thing).
That said, the Saudis are not only morally bankrupt, but have shown a tendency to screw the west since the oil shock they engineered in the 70s. If your interests don’t coincide, why back an obnoxious regime ?
To be fair to sapient, I more or less get where he’s coming from. Foreign policy is difficult, and avowedly moralistic foreign policy doesn’t necessarily result it better outcomes than the realpolitik alternative (one only has to look at how the ‘Arab Spring’ has turned out so far).
A policy which supports order over chaos is at least arguable (not that I’m arguing the Yemen policy is any such thing).
That said, the Saudis are not only morally bankrupt, but have shown a tendency to screw the west since the oil shock they engineered in the 70s. If your interests don’t coincide, why back an obnoxious regime ?
People are actually worried about the strait, wj. The concerns you’ve stated are legitimate as well.
Trying to figure out how not to deal with Saudis is a great plan, but their oil and strategic location are important to the world’s economy and security. We can’t just take our ball and go home. I would be interested to read how people think things would work if we did.
People are actually worried about the strait, wj. The concerns you’ve stated are legitimate as well.
Trying to figure out how not to deal with Saudis is a great plan, but their oil and strategic location are important to the world’s economy and security. We can’t just take our ball and go home. I would be interested to read how people think things would work if we did.
People are actually worried about the strait, wj. The concerns you’ve stated are legitimate as well.
Trying to figure out how not to deal with Saudis is a great plan, but their oil and strategic location are important to the world’s economy and security. We can’t just take our ball and go home. I would be interested to read how people think things would work if we did.
I’m not the one who’s handwringing, or engaging in tormented moralizing.
Perhaps you weren’t before, but that comment certainly rises to that level.
Snark aside, the problem is that while we may deal in lesser evils elsewhere, you show nothing to demonstrate that’s the case here. As wj and Nigel more succinctly point out. You merely admonish us to trust in the goodness of the administration, and make vague suggestions that the forces that the administration is opposing might be wanting to do bad things, maybe, so we need to pipe down. You’ve not made any case that this instance is either moral or necessary; you just made vague general statements about the difficulty of international policy in general, coupled with vague (and somewhat-reeking-of-virtue-ethics) appeals to authority. There’s very little to suggest the Kingdom is doing anything outside of its normal anti-Shi’a agenda, and there’s very little to suggest we’re doing anything here other than turning a blind eye to evil in the interest of maintaining regional influence.
I’m not the one who’s handwringing, or engaging in tormented moralizing.
Perhaps you weren’t before, but that comment certainly rises to that level.
Snark aside, the problem is that while we may deal in lesser evils elsewhere, you show nothing to demonstrate that’s the case here. As wj and Nigel more succinctly point out. You merely admonish us to trust in the goodness of the administration, and make vague suggestions that the forces that the administration is opposing might be wanting to do bad things, maybe, so we need to pipe down. You’ve not made any case that this instance is either moral or necessary; you just made vague general statements about the difficulty of international policy in general, coupled with vague (and somewhat-reeking-of-virtue-ethics) appeals to authority. There’s very little to suggest the Kingdom is doing anything outside of its normal anti-Shi’a agenda, and there’s very little to suggest we’re doing anything here other than turning a blind eye to evil in the interest of maintaining regional influence.
I’m not the one who’s handwringing, or engaging in tormented moralizing.
Perhaps you weren’t before, but that comment certainly rises to that level.
Snark aside, the problem is that while we may deal in lesser evils elsewhere, you show nothing to demonstrate that’s the case here. As wj and Nigel more succinctly point out. You merely admonish us to trust in the goodness of the administration, and make vague suggestions that the forces that the administration is opposing might be wanting to do bad things, maybe, so we need to pipe down. You’ve not made any case that this instance is either moral or necessary; you just made vague general statements about the difficulty of international policy in general, coupled with vague (and somewhat-reeking-of-virtue-ethics) appeals to authority. There’s very little to suggest the Kingdom is doing anything outside of its normal anti-Shi’a agenda, and there’s very little to suggest we’re doing anything here other than turning a blind eye to evil in the interest of maintaining regional influence.
Sapient, the article you cite doesn’t say anything about the Houthis shutting down shipping or even wanting to do so. It says that coalition forces wanted to seize strategic terrain and infrastructure. And there’s a rather more cynical (and telling) angle suggested as well, if I may do something so gauche as to listen to what the Houthis say themselves rather than trusting the objective and reliable Saudis on the subject of Houthi motives:
Hmm. Sounds like the attack – by the Saudi-led coalition, mind – succeeded in THAT regard.
Sapient, the article you cite doesn’t say anything about the Houthis shutting down shipping or even wanting to do so. It says that coalition forces wanted to seize strategic terrain and infrastructure. And there’s a rather more cynical (and telling) angle suggested as well, if I may do something so gauche as to listen to what the Houthis say themselves rather than trusting the objective and reliable Saudis on the subject of Houthi motives:
Hmm. Sounds like the attack – by the Saudi-led coalition, mind – succeeded in THAT regard.
Sapient, the article you cite doesn’t say anything about the Houthis shutting down shipping or even wanting to do so. It says that coalition forces wanted to seize strategic terrain and infrastructure. And there’s a rather more cynical (and telling) angle suggested as well, if I may do something so gauche as to listen to what the Houthis say themselves rather than trusting the objective and reliable Saudis on the subject of Houthi motives:
Hmm. Sounds like the attack – by the Saudi-led coalition, mind – succeeded in THAT regard.
Nombrilisme Vide, would you mind addressing the issue of the Bab al-Mandab strait since we’re supposedly trying to keep our focus on the actual issues behind the war?
Nombrilisme Vide, would you mind addressing the issue of the Bab al-Mandab strait since we’re supposedly trying to keep our focus on the actual issues behind the war?
Nombrilisme Vide, would you mind addressing the issue of the Bab al-Mandab strait since we’re supposedly trying to keep our focus on the actual issues behind the war?
The Houthis held the strait for awhile. They admitted that their aim was to raise concern. Sounds like they succeeded.
The Houthis held the strait for awhile. They admitted that their aim was to raise concern. Sounds like they succeeded.
The Houthis held the strait for awhile. They admitted that their aim was to raise concern. Sounds like they succeeded.
If the US were run by people I wholeheartedly supported I am positive we would still be supporting lesser of two evil governments and groups and would get our hands dirty. In Syria, for instance, there are no good choices if we wish to be involved at all, and not being involved is not a choice–even urging peace talks involves making choices on which nauseating groups should have a voice at the table. If we don’t topple him, then Assad or his regime will be a part of the solution and it hardly matters if Assad left, since he didn’t personally kill tens of thousands of civilians or do all the torturing himself. And no doubt the “moderates” we’ve armed have done some nasty things as well.
But we ought to be honest about who and what we are supporting and why we are supporting such groups and we almost never have honest discussions about such things in the US, because we are too busy praising our own inherent nobility and goodness and contrasting ourselves with our evil enemies who commit atrocities. Conversations are conducted on an incredibly childish level. You don’t like my handwringing, though you certainly are no slouch at it when you can blame Islamists or Republicans. You are the world champion hand wringer in those cases. In a mature society where people were honest about these things everyone would know that the US government is supporting Saudi Arabia as they bomb schools, we’d all agree this was awful, and then there would be discussions and heated arguments about what we should be doing. There wouldn’t be any reason for me to contribute, because what the information in the links I provided would be common knowledge and there would be no room for hypocrisy on the subject. A murdered civilian is just as murdered when our allies do it as when our enemies do it, and everyone would begin the conversation on that basis. I don’t happen to think there is a good reason for us to be giving military and diplomatic support to Saudi Arabia and am baffled by the argument that we have to support war crimes to make the world a better place. We aren’t going to go to war with Saudi Arabia or for that matter Israel to stop their crimes, but we don’t have to give them cover. We might be able to pull them back if we openly criticized them and stopped giving them weapons knowing how those weapons will be used. That won’t happen and not simply because the Bestest President Ever has decided on exactly the right policy, but in large part because of domestic politics. Or if you want to assume Obama has the best of intentions, and maybe he does, his policies are in large part determined right here at home and are not by any stretch of the imagination the ones he would follow if those domestic pressures didn’t exist.
Many Americans believe in American exceptionalism and it is convenient for our politicians to encourage this belief, because then that is one factor they don’t have to worry about when they support war criminals or have the US commit war crimes. In the case of Israel there are influential factions in both parties which think Israel can do no wrong, so we don’t have honest discussions about what they do.
Saudi Arabia is a weird case–most ordinary people in both p
arties despise the Saudi government, but yet here we are helping them bomb civilians and the NYT prints its story on page 10, because that’s about the level of interest it gets. Which is weird, if you just came here from Neptune and listened to all the passionate hand wringing against terrorism. How could we possibly be serious and then not even care about what our allies do in Yemen and have done to Gaza?
Incidentally, supporting Israel in Gaza has led to a situation where ISIS is starting to get a foothold there. Hamas–those are the moderates.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/01/14/isis-in-gaza/
If the US were run by people I wholeheartedly supported I am positive we would still be supporting lesser of two evil governments and groups and would get our hands dirty. In Syria, for instance, there are no good choices if we wish to be involved at all, and not being involved is not a choice–even urging peace talks involves making choices on which nauseating groups should have a voice at the table. If we don’t topple him, then Assad or his regime will be a part of the solution and it hardly matters if Assad left, since he didn’t personally kill tens of thousands of civilians or do all the torturing himself. And no doubt the “moderates” we’ve armed have done some nasty things as well.
But we ought to be honest about who and what we are supporting and why we are supporting such groups and we almost never have honest discussions about such things in the US, because we are too busy praising our own inherent nobility and goodness and contrasting ourselves with our evil enemies who commit atrocities. Conversations are conducted on an incredibly childish level. You don’t like my handwringing, though you certainly are no slouch at it when you can blame Islamists or Republicans. You are the world champion hand wringer in those cases. In a mature society where people were honest about these things everyone would know that the US government is supporting Saudi Arabia as they bomb schools, we’d all agree this was awful, and then there would be discussions and heated arguments about what we should be doing. There wouldn’t be any reason for me to contribute, because what the information in the links I provided would be common knowledge and there would be no room for hypocrisy on the subject. A murdered civilian is just as murdered when our allies do it as when our enemies do it, and everyone would begin the conversation on that basis. I don’t happen to think there is a good reason for us to be giving military and diplomatic support to Saudi Arabia and am baffled by the argument that we have to support war crimes to make the world a better place. We aren’t going to go to war with Saudi Arabia or for that matter Israel to stop their crimes, but we don’t have to give them cover. We might be able to pull them back if we openly criticized them and stopped giving them weapons knowing how those weapons will be used. That won’t happen and not simply because the Bestest President Ever has decided on exactly the right policy, but in large part because of domestic politics. Or if you want to assume Obama has the best of intentions, and maybe he does, his policies are in large part determined right here at home and are not by any stretch of the imagination the ones he would follow if those domestic pressures didn’t exist.
Many Americans believe in American exceptionalism and it is convenient for our politicians to encourage this belief, because then that is one factor they don’t have to worry about when they support war criminals or have the US commit war crimes. In the case of Israel there are influential factions in both parties which think Israel can do no wrong, so we don’t have honest discussions about what they do.
Saudi Arabia is a weird case–most ordinary people in both p
arties despise the Saudi government, but yet here we are helping them bomb civilians and the NYT prints its story on page 10, because that’s about the level of interest it gets. Which is weird, if you just came here from Neptune and listened to all the passionate hand wringing against terrorism. How could we possibly be serious and then not even care about what our allies do in Yemen and have done to Gaza?
Incidentally, supporting Israel in Gaza has led to a situation where ISIS is starting to get a foothold there. Hamas–those are the moderates.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/01/14/isis-in-gaza/
If the US were run by people I wholeheartedly supported I am positive we would still be supporting lesser of two evil governments and groups and would get our hands dirty. In Syria, for instance, there are no good choices if we wish to be involved at all, and not being involved is not a choice–even urging peace talks involves making choices on which nauseating groups should have a voice at the table. If we don’t topple him, then Assad or his regime will be a part of the solution and it hardly matters if Assad left, since he didn’t personally kill tens of thousands of civilians or do all the torturing himself. And no doubt the “moderates” we’ve armed have done some nasty things as well.
But we ought to be honest about who and what we are supporting and why we are supporting such groups and we almost never have honest discussions about such things in the US, because we are too busy praising our own inherent nobility and goodness and contrasting ourselves with our evil enemies who commit atrocities. Conversations are conducted on an incredibly childish level. You don’t like my handwringing, though you certainly are no slouch at it when you can blame Islamists or Republicans. You are the world champion hand wringer in those cases. In a mature society where people were honest about these things everyone would know that the US government is supporting Saudi Arabia as they bomb schools, we’d all agree this was awful, and then there would be discussions and heated arguments about what we should be doing. There wouldn’t be any reason for me to contribute, because what the information in the links I provided would be common knowledge and there would be no room for hypocrisy on the subject. A murdered civilian is just as murdered when our allies do it as when our enemies do it, and everyone would begin the conversation on that basis. I don’t happen to think there is a good reason for us to be giving military and diplomatic support to Saudi Arabia and am baffled by the argument that we have to support war crimes to make the world a better place. We aren’t going to go to war with Saudi Arabia or for that matter Israel to stop their crimes, but we don’t have to give them cover. We might be able to pull them back if we openly criticized them and stopped giving them weapons knowing how those weapons will be used. That won’t happen and not simply because the Bestest President Ever has decided on exactly the right policy, but in large part because of domestic politics. Or if you want to assume Obama has the best of intentions, and maybe he does, his policies are in large part determined right here at home and are not by any stretch of the imagination the ones he would follow if those domestic pressures didn’t exist.
Many Americans believe in American exceptionalism and it is convenient for our politicians to encourage this belief, because then that is one factor they don’t have to worry about when they support war criminals or have the US commit war crimes. In the case of Israel there are influential factions in both parties which think Israel can do no wrong, so we don’t have honest discussions about what they do.
Saudi Arabia is a weird case–most ordinary people in both p
arties despise the Saudi government, but yet here we are helping them bomb civilians and the NYT prints its story on page 10, because that’s about the level of interest it gets. Which is weird, if you just came here from Neptune and listened to all the passionate hand wringing against terrorism. How could we possibly be serious and then not even care about what our allies do in Yemen and have done to Gaza?
Incidentally, supporting Israel in Gaza has led to a situation where ISIS is starting to get a foothold there. Hamas–those are the moderates.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/01/14/isis-in-gaza/
I did read that the Houthis are interested in cutting off shipping in the Bab al-Mandab strait
Is that feasible? Do they have a navy of any kind, or missiles or other weapon systems capable of interfering with shipping?
If I’m not mistaken, the Bab al-Mandab is already patrolled by navies from a number of countries – US, Russia, UK, France – to defend against Somalian and other pirates.
I did read that the Houthis are interested in cutting off shipping in the Bab al-Mandab strait
Is that feasible? Do they have a navy of any kind, or missiles or other weapon systems capable of interfering with shipping?
If I’m not mistaken, the Bab al-Mandab is already patrolled by navies from a number of countries – US, Russia, UK, France – to defend against Somalian and other pirates.
I did read that the Houthis are interested in cutting off shipping in the Bab al-Mandab strait
Is that feasible? Do they have a navy of any kind, or missiles or other weapon systems capable of interfering with shipping?
If I’m not mistaken, the Bab al-Mandab is already patrolled by navies from a number of countries – US, Russia, UK, France – to defend against Somalian and other pirates.
I did read that the Houthis are interested in cutting off shipping in the Bab al-Mandab strait
Is that feasible? Do they have a navy of any kind, or missiles or other weapon systems capable of interfering with shipping?
If I’m not mistaken, the Bab al-Mandab is already patrolled by navies from a number of countries – US, Russia, UK, France – to defend against Somalian and other pirates.
I did read that the Houthis are interested in cutting off shipping in the Bab al-Mandab strait
Is that feasible? Do they have a navy of any kind, or missiles or other weapon systems capable of interfering with shipping?
If I’m not mistaken, the Bab al-Mandab is already patrolled by navies from a number of countries – US, Russia, UK, France – to defend against Somalian and other pirates.
I did read that the Houthis are interested in cutting off shipping in the Bab al-Mandab strait
Is that feasible? Do they have a navy of any kind, or missiles or other weapon systems capable of interfering with shipping?
If I’m not mistaken, the Bab al-Mandab is already patrolled by navies from a number of countries – US, Russia, UK, France – to defend against Somalian and other pirates.
The Houthis held the strait for awhile. They admitted that their aim was to raise concern. Sounds like they succeeded.
Hmm. They held it a while, yet nothing happened. Hmm. Interesting, that.
…still no cite showing them to have threatened to block the Straits, let alone, as russel points out, a capability of doing so. So I’m gonna say it’s not me who’s failing to address the matter of the Straits, though I would point out that keeping to the subject of the actual war at hand would be focusing on the war, rather than the one peripheral aspect which appears to be of international interest (though again, nothing has been presented to demonstrate that this interest is grounded in reality, or anything but a convenient justification to excuse any and all “excesses” by the dear House of Saud).
But feel free to ignore me and address DJ. He’s done a better and more succinct job articulating what’s wrong with your objections than I have.
The Houthis held the strait for awhile. They admitted that their aim was to raise concern. Sounds like they succeeded.
Hmm. They held it a while, yet nothing happened. Hmm. Interesting, that.
…still no cite showing them to have threatened to block the Straits, let alone, as russel points out, a capability of doing so. So I’m gonna say it’s not me who’s failing to address the matter of the Straits, though I would point out that keeping to the subject of the actual war at hand would be focusing on the war, rather than the one peripheral aspect which appears to be of international interest (though again, nothing has been presented to demonstrate that this interest is grounded in reality, or anything but a convenient justification to excuse any and all “excesses” by the dear House of Saud).
But feel free to ignore me and address DJ. He’s done a better and more succinct job articulating what’s wrong with your objections than I have.
The Houthis held the strait for awhile. They admitted that their aim was to raise concern. Sounds like they succeeded.
Hmm. They held it a while, yet nothing happened. Hmm. Interesting, that.
…still no cite showing them to have threatened to block the Straits, let alone, as russel points out, a capability of doing so. So I’m gonna say it’s not me who’s failing to address the matter of the Straits, though I would point out that keeping to the subject of the actual war at hand would be focusing on the war, rather than the one peripheral aspect which appears to be of international interest (though again, nothing has been presented to demonstrate that this interest is grounded in reality, or anything but a convenient justification to excuse any and all “excesses” by the dear House of Saud).
But feel free to ignore me and address DJ. He’s done a better and more succinct job articulating what’s wrong with your objections than I have.
We can’t just take our ball and go home.
It may not be wise to do so, but this is an option. Your assertion is an attempt to define the acceptable parameters of the debate.
I would be interested to read how people think things would work if we did.
We don’t really know what would happen.
Perhaps we should start with the basics: Define our ‘national interests’ in the Middle East.
We can’t just take our ball and go home.
It may not be wise to do so, but this is an option. Your assertion is an attempt to define the acceptable parameters of the debate.
I would be interested to read how people think things would work if we did.
We don’t really know what would happen.
Perhaps we should start with the basics: Define our ‘national interests’ in the Middle East.
We can’t just take our ball and go home.
It may not be wise to do so, but this is an option. Your assertion is an attempt to define the acceptable parameters of the debate.
I would be interested to read how people think things would work if we did.
We don’t really know what would happen.
Perhaps we should start with the basics: Define our ‘national interests’ in the Middle East.
Is that feasible? Do they have a navy of any kind, or missiles or other weapon systems capable of interfering with shipping?
The Houthis are allied with Iran. Is it safe to assume that the Yemen war is a proxy war against Iranian/Russian interests?
But we ought to be honest about who and what we are supporting and why we are supporting such groups and we almost never have honest discussions about such things in the US, because we are too busy praising our own inherent nobility and goodness and contrasting ourselves with our evil enemies who commit atrocities.
I agree with the first clause of that sentence completely, although I don’t think our lack of conversation is because “we are too busy praising” ourselves. I think our lack of conversation has to do with the fact that many people are ignorant of what’s happening in the world, much less why people are fighting each other in complicated religious and economic rivalries where both sides are supported by historic alliances. Many of the people who do focus on those things work in government, trying to understand situations pretty much 24/7.
Your article, Donald, illustrated that whatever our interest in supporting the Saudis is, we are becoming more intolerant of abuses. Rather than applauding that tendency, you deride the people who are trying to balance our political interest with the desire to mitigate the suffering.
So, sure, let’s talk about why we’re involved, and what the situation would look like if we weren’t. My guess is that it wouldn’t look better.
Is that feasible? Do they have a navy of any kind, or missiles or other weapon systems capable of interfering with shipping?
The Houthis are allied with Iran. Is it safe to assume that the Yemen war is a proxy war against Iranian/Russian interests?
But we ought to be honest about who and what we are supporting and why we are supporting such groups and we almost never have honest discussions about such things in the US, because we are too busy praising our own inherent nobility and goodness and contrasting ourselves with our evil enemies who commit atrocities.
I agree with the first clause of that sentence completely, although I don’t think our lack of conversation is because “we are too busy praising” ourselves. I think our lack of conversation has to do with the fact that many people are ignorant of what’s happening in the world, much less why people are fighting each other in complicated religious and economic rivalries where both sides are supported by historic alliances. Many of the people who do focus on those things work in government, trying to understand situations pretty much 24/7.
Your article, Donald, illustrated that whatever our interest in supporting the Saudis is, we are becoming more intolerant of abuses. Rather than applauding that tendency, you deride the people who are trying to balance our political interest with the desire to mitigate the suffering.
So, sure, let’s talk about why we’re involved, and what the situation would look like if we weren’t. My guess is that it wouldn’t look better.
Is that feasible? Do they have a navy of any kind, or missiles or other weapon systems capable of interfering with shipping?
The Houthis are allied with Iran. Is it safe to assume that the Yemen war is a proxy war against Iranian/Russian interests?
But we ought to be honest about who and what we are supporting and why we are supporting such groups and we almost never have honest discussions about such things in the US, because we are too busy praising our own inherent nobility and goodness and contrasting ourselves with our evil enemies who commit atrocities.
I agree with the first clause of that sentence completely, although I don’t think our lack of conversation is because “we are too busy praising” ourselves. I think our lack of conversation has to do with the fact that many people are ignorant of what’s happening in the world, much less why people are fighting each other in complicated religious and economic rivalries where both sides are supported by historic alliances. Many of the people who do focus on those things work in government, trying to understand situations pretty much 24/7.
Your article, Donald, illustrated that whatever our interest in supporting the Saudis is, we are becoming more intolerant of abuses. Rather than applauding that tendency, you deride the people who are trying to balance our political interest with the desire to mitigate the suffering.
So, sure, let’s talk about why we’re involved, and what the situation would look like if we weren’t. My guess is that it wouldn’t look better.
I get both sides of the argument, either of which and/or in combination seem thinkable any because the alternatives are unthinkable.
Here’s a third view.
We, typically, as control-freak Americans who somewhere along the line conjured a ridiculously confident delusion, enhanced by the presence of vast oceans on either side of us (the saltwater of one of which is now seeping up through the porous limestone in south Florida, including the streets of Miami; one piece of destiny now illegal to mention in the government that “thinks” it controls that particular land mass’s destiny) … and until 1989 by the overbearing control calculus and hegemony that we and the Soviet Union exercised over world events during the Cold War, that we are somehow in charge of not only our destiny, but the world’s as well.
Oh, there’s a ball. It may be round or not. It might be “ours” … sometimes, meaning we might have possession of it on third down and four to go (choose what game you like). It can be thrown, it can be passed, it can be inflated or deflated to affect imaginary results, but take a close look at the ball, maybe sniff it, maybe listen for ticking, and think about all of the bad passes, fumbles, and errant kicks we’ve made of it over the past epoch in that part of the world.
I think it has a fuse. Probably nuclear.
Maybe there is more than one ball. Others have balls too.
I get both sides of the argument, either of which and/or in combination seem thinkable any because the alternatives are unthinkable.
Here’s a third view.
We, typically, as control-freak Americans who somewhere along the line conjured a ridiculously confident delusion, enhanced by the presence of vast oceans on either side of us (the saltwater of one of which is now seeping up through the porous limestone in south Florida, including the streets of Miami; one piece of destiny now illegal to mention in the government that “thinks” it controls that particular land mass’s destiny) … and until 1989 by the overbearing control calculus and hegemony that we and the Soviet Union exercised over world events during the Cold War, that we are somehow in charge of not only our destiny, but the world’s as well.
Oh, there’s a ball. It may be round or not. It might be “ours” … sometimes, meaning we might have possession of it on third down and four to go (choose what game you like). It can be thrown, it can be passed, it can be inflated or deflated to affect imaginary results, but take a close look at the ball, maybe sniff it, maybe listen for ticking, and think about all of the bad passes, fumbles, and errant kicks we’ve made of it over the past epoch in that part of the world.
I think it has a fuse. Probably nuclear.
Maybe there is more than one ball. Others have balls too.
I get both sides of the argument, either of which and/or in combination seem thinkable any because the alternatives are unthinkable.
Here’s a third view.
We, typically, as control-freak Americans who somewhere along the line conjured a ridiculously confident delusion, enhanced by the presence of vast oceans on either side of us (the saltwater of one of which is now seeping up through the porous limestone in south Florida, including the streets of Miami; one piece of destiny now illegal to mention in the government that “thinks” it controls that particular land mass’s destiny) … and until 1989 by the overbearing control calculus and hegemony that we and the Soviet Union exercised over world events during the Cold War, that we are somehow in charge of not only our destiny, but the world’s as well.
Oh, there’s a ball. It may be round or not. It might be “ours” … sometimes, meaning we might have possession of it on third down and four to go (choose what game you like). It can be thrown, it can be passed, it can be inflated or deflated to affect imaginary results, but take a close look at the ball, maybe sniff it, maybe listen for ticking, and think about all of the bad passes, fumbles, and errant kicks we’ve made of it over the past epoch in that part of the world.
I think it has a fuse. Probably nuclear.
Maybe there is more than one ball. Others have balls too.
Is it safe to assume that the Yemen war is a proxy war against Iranian/Russian interests?
Sapient, how did the Russians sneak into this discussion?
I can see the Iranian interest: they tend to support their co-religionists. Not surprising in an environment where Shias are often repressed, even when they constitute a majority of the population. But beyond that, there is no obvious (at least to me) Iranian interest in Yemen.
And why the Russians would care is even less obvious. Beyond a fondness for stirring the pot wherever they can, in tribute to the memory of the USSR’s foreign policy, what would involvement get them?
Is it safe to assume that the Yemen war is a proxy war against Iranian/Russian interests?
Sapient, how did the Russians sneak into this discussion?
I can see the Iranian interest: they tend to support their co-religionists. Not surprising in an environment where Shias are often repressed, even when they constitute a majority of the population. But beyond that, there is no obvious (at least to me) Iranian interest in Yemen.
And why the Russians would care is even less obvious. Beyond a fondness for stirring the pot wherever they can, in tribute to the memory of the USSR’s foreign policy, what would involvement get them?
Is it safe to assume that the Yemen war is a proxy war against Iranian/Russian interests?
Sapient, how did the Russians sneak into this discussion?
I can see the Iranian interest: they tend to support their co-religionists. Not surprising in an environment where Shias are often repressed, even when they constitute a majority of the population. But beyond that, there is no obvious (at least to me) Iranian interest in Yemen.
And why the Russians would care is even less obvious. Beyond a fondness for stirring the pot wherever they can, in tribute to the memory of the USSR’s foreign policy, what would involvement get them?
The Houthis are allied with Iran. Is it safe to assume that the Yemen war is a proxy war against Iranian/Russian interests?
Was that an answer to my question?
Are the Russians aligned with Iran now?
Does the idea that our support of Saudi Arabia’s fight with the Houthis is really a proxy war with either Iran or Russia, independently or in combination, make the whole package more attractive, or less?
I second bobbyp’s comment about articulating what, exactly, or interests actually are in the region. Absent that, there is no sense to anything we’re doing there.
The Houthis are allied with Iran. Is it safe to assume that the Yemen war is a proxy war against Iranian/Russian interests?
Was that an answer to my question?
Are the Russians aligned with Iran now?
Does the idea that our support of Saudi Arabia’s fight with the Houthis is really a proxy war with either Iran or Russia, independently or in combination, make the whole package more attractive, or less?
I second bobbyp’s comment about articulating what, exactly, or interests actually are in the region. Absent that, there is no sense to anything we’re doing there.
The Houthis are allied with Iran. Is it safe to assume that the Yemen war is a proxy war against Iranian/Russian interests?
Was that an answer to my question?
Are the Russians aligned with Iran now?
Does the idea that our support of Saudi Arabia’s fight with the Houthis is really a proxy war with either Iran or Russia, independently or in combination, make the whole package more attractive, or less?
I second bobbyp’s comment about articulating what, exactly, or interests actually are in the region. Absent that, there is no sense to anything we’re doing there.
Are the Russians aligned with Iran now? Yes. You could say that Russian alliance with Assad is also part of that equation.
Does the idea that our support of Saudi Arabia’s fight with the Houthis is really a proxy war with either Iran or Russia, independently or in combination, make the whole package more attractive, or less?
To me? I’m not “attracted” to any of it.
Preserving the balance of power in the world is important, and it’s the main interest we have in the region. Is it attractive? It’s attractive to maintain oil supplies to parts of the world that are dependent on them. Is it our job to do it? I don’t our allies complaining. Take a look at this article for a clue on Germany’s take on the situation.
Are the Russians aligned with Iran now? Yes. You could say that Russian alliance with Assad is also part of that equation.
Does the idea that our support of Saudi Arabia’s fight with the Houthis is really a proxy war with either Iran or Russia, independently or in combination, make the whole package more attractive, or less?
To me? I’m not “attracted” to any of it.
Preserving the balance of power in the world is important, and it’s the main interest we have in the region. Is it attractive? It’s attractive to maintain oil supplies to parts of the world that are dependent on them. Is it our job to do it? I don’t our allies complaining. Take a look at this article for a clue on Germany’s take on the situation.
Are the Russians aligned with Iran now? Yes. You could say that Russian alliance with Assad is also part of that equation.
Does the idea that our support of Saudi Arabia’s fight with the Houthis is really a proxy war with either Iran or Russia, independently or in combination, make the whole package more attractive, or less?
To me? I’m not “attracted” to any of it.
Preserving the balance of power in the world is important, and it’s the main interest we have in the region. Is it attractive? It’s attractive to maintain oil supplies to parts of the world that are dependent on them. Is it our job to do it? I don’t our allies complaining. Take a look at this article for a clue on Germany’s take on the situation.
It’s attractive to maintain oil supplies to parts of the world that are dependent on them.
Yes, I think our interest in the area generally was articulated by the Carter Doctrine. We don’t want anyone interfering with a reliable global supply of oil.
If I understand it correctly, Donald’s issue was with Saudi targeting of schools, hospitals, and other civilian targets as part of their fight with the Houthis.
Does the balance of power in the middle east depend upon Saudis bombing hospitals and schools? Are our national interests served by being associated with that?
It’s attractive to maintain oil supplies to parts of the world that are dependent on them.
Yes, I think our interest in the area generally was articulated by the Carter Doctrine. We don’t want anyone interfering with a reliable global supply of oil.
If I understand it correctly, Donald’s issue was with Saudi targeting of schools, hospitals, and other civilian targets as part of their fight with the Houthis.
Does the balance of power in the middle east depend upon Saudis bombing hospitals and schools? Are our national interests served by being associated with that?
It’s attractive to maintain oil supplies to parts of the world that are dependent on them.
Yes, I think our interest in the area generally was articulated by the Carter Doctrine. We don’t want anyone interfering with a reliable global supply of oil.
If I understand it correctly, Donald’s issue was with Saudi targeting of schools, hospitals, and other civilian targets as part of their fight with the Houthis.
Does the balance of power in the middle east depend upon Saudis bombing hospitals and schools? Are our national interests served by being associated with that?
It’s attractive to maintain oil supplies to parts of the world that are dependent on them.
Yes, I think our interest in the area generally was articulated by the Carter Doctrine. We don’t want anyone interfering with a reliable global supply of oil.
If I understand it correctly, Donald’s issue was with Saudi targeting of schools, hospitals, and other civilian targets as part of their fight with the Houthis.
Does the balance of power in the middle east depend upon Saudis bombing hospitals and schools? Are our national interests served by being associated with that?
It’s attractive to maintain oil supplies to parts of the world that are dependent on them.
Yes, I think our interest in the area generally was articulated by the Carter Doctrine. We don’t want anyone interfering with a reliable global supply of oil.
If I understand it correctly, Donald’s issue was with Saudi targeting of schools, hospitals, and other civilian targets as part of their fight with the Houthis.
Does the balance of power in the middle east depend upon Saudis bombing hospitals and schools? Are our national interests served by being associated with that?
It’s attractive to maintain oil supplies to parts of the world that are dependent on them.
Yes, I think our interest in the area generally was articulated by the Carter Doctrine. We don’t want anyone interfering with a reliable global supply of oil.
If I understand it correctly, Donald’s issue was with Saudi targeting of schools, hospitals, and other civilian targets as part of their fight with the Houthis.
Does the balance of power in the middle east depend upon Saudis bombing hospitals and schools? Are our national interests served by being associated with that?
Does the balance of power in the middle east depend upon Saudis bombing hospitals and schools? Are our national interests served by being associated with that?
Of course not. To my knowledge, we haven’t endorsed the Saudis bombing of hospitals and schools.
Does the balance of power in the middle east depend upon Saudis bombing hospitals and schools? Are our national interests served by being associated with that?
Of course not. To my knowledge, we haven’t endorsed the Saudis bombing of hospitals and schools.
Does the balance of power in the middle east depend upon Saudis bombing hospitals and schools? Are our national interests served by being associated with that?
Of course not. To my knowledge, we haven’t endorsed the Saudis bombing of hospitals and schools.
Sapient,
You write:
It’s attractive to maintain oil supplies to parts of the world that are dependent on them
This appears to be your line of reasoning:
1. It is vital to maintain the flow of oil from the ME to international markets.
2. If we do not “maintain the balance of power” in the ME, this flow will be disrupted and/or halted.
Is my understanding correct? If it is, I simply do not agree based upon the simple fact that whomever “controls” the flow of ME oil, it will reach world markets regardless.
So again. What are our “vital national interests” in the ME?
Sapient,
You write:
It’s attractive to maintain oil supplies to parts of the world that are dependent on them
This appears to be your line of reasoning:
1. It is vital to maintain the flow of oil from the ME to international markets.
2. If we do not “maintain the balance of power” in the ME, this flow will be disrupted and/or halted.
Is my understanding correct? If it is, I simply do not agree based upon the simple fact that whomever “controls” the flow of ME oil, it will reach world markets regardless.
So again. What are our “vital national interests” in the ME?
Sapient,
You write:
It’s attractive to maintain oil supplies to parts of the world that are dependent on them
This appears to be your line of reasoning:
1. It is vital to maintain the flow of oil from the ME to international markets.
2. If we do not “maintain the balance of power” in the ME, this flow will be disrupted and/or halted.
Is my understanding correct? If it is, I simply do not agree based upon the simple fact that whomever “controls” the flow of ME oil, it will reach world markets regardless.
So again. What are our “vital national interests” in the ME?
I simply do not agree based upon the simple fact that whomever “controls” the flow of ME oil, it will reach world markets regardless.
You are welcome to your opinion. You’ll find very few policymakers in Western nations who would be willing to roll the dice.
By the way, I think that the balance of power issue and the oil issue are two separate, but interwoven, matters of national interest to the United States and its allies.
I simply do not agree based upon the simple fact that whomever “controls” the flow of ME oil, it will reach world markets regardless.
You are welcome to your opinion. You’ll find very few policymakers in Western nations who would be willing to roll the dice.
By the way, I think that the balance of power issue and the oil issue are two separate, but interwoven, matters of national interest to the United States and its allies.
I simply do not agree based upon the simple fact that whomever “controls” the flow of ME oil, it will reach world markets regardless.
You are welcome to your opinion. You’ll find very few policymakers in Western nations who would be willing to roll the dice.
By the way, I think that the balance of power issue and the oil issue are two separate, but interwoven, matters of national interest to the United States and its allies.
So,
1. The “balance of power” in the ME is a “vital national interest” simply because our foreign policy establishment thinks it is?
That must explain all our efforts to squash Iran, right? To retain “balance”, right?
I will ask for the last time: Define our “vital national interests” in the ME.
So,
1. The “balance of power” in the ME is a “vital national interest” simply because our foreign policy establishment thinks it is?
That must explain all our efforts to squash Iran, right? To retain “balance”, right?
I will ask for the last time: Define our “vital national interests” in the ME.
So,
1. The “balance of power” in the ME is a “vital national interest” simply because our foreign policy establishment thinks it is?
That must explain all our efforts to squash Iran, right? To retain “balance”, right?
I will ask for the last time: Define our “vital national interests” in the ME.
Judging from our actions over the years, I’m not so sure that “maintaining the balance of power in the Middle East” is actually what drives our foreign policy. It looks a lot more like “maintain the status quo.” (Actually, it may not be limited to the Middle East.)
Granted, in a lot of cases, the status quo and the current balance of power are very similar. But consider the West Bank or Somaliland. There’s no reason that resolving the situation in the West Bank would change the balance of power. Not that recognizing the government of Somaliland would do so. But either one would constitute a change in the status quo. And there is no sign that we are interested in either happening.
Judging from our actions over the years, I’m not so sure that “maintaining the balance of power in the Middle East” is actually what drives our foreign policy. It looks a lot more like “maintain the status quo.” (Actually, it may not be limited to the Middle East.)
Granted, in a lot of cases, the status quo and the current balance of power are very similar. But consider the West Bank or Somaliland. There’s no reason that resolving the situation in the West Bank would change the balance of power. Not that recognizing the government of Somaliland would do so. But either one would constitute a change in the status quo. And there is no sign that we are interested in either happening.
Judging from our actions over the years, I’m not so sure that “maintaining the balance of power in the Middle East” is actually what drives our foreign policy. It looks a lot more like “maintain the status quo.” (Actually, it may not be limited to the Middle East.)
Granted, in a lot of cases, the status quo and the current balance of power are very similar. But consider the West Bank or Somaliland. There’s no reason that resolving the situation in the West Bank would change the balance of power. Not that recognizing the government of Somaliland would do so. But either one would constitute a change in the status quo. And there is no sign that we are interested in either happening.
Of course not. To my knowledge, we haven’t endorsed the Saudis bombing of hospitals and schools.
Of course not. That isn’t the sort of thing you do in civil company, after all. Nope, we just pointedly ignored their doing so, remained aloof when fourth parties tried to shine a light on it in international forums, and quietly announced our tacit acceptance of Saudi atrocities by continuing our policies of close tactical, operational, and logistical support of said bombings.
Oh, and maybe when someone was so gauche as to bring it up, we started trying to set up unconvincing moral calculus IOT diminish what the Saudis have done.
Of course not. To my knowledge, we haven’t endorsed the Saudis bombing of hospitals and schools.
Of course not. That isn’t the sort of thing you do in civil company, after all. Nope, we just pointedly ignored their doing so, remained aloof when fourth parties tried to shine a light on it in international forums, and quietly announced our tacit acceptance of Saudi atrocities by continuing our policies of close tactical, operational, and logistical support of said bombings.
Oh, and maybe when someone was so gauche as to bring it up, we started trying to set up unconvincing moral calculus IOT diminish what the Saudis have done.
Of course not. To my knowledge, we haven’t endorsed the Saudis bombing of hospitals and schools.
Of course not. That isn’t the sort of thing you do in civil company, after all. Nope, we just pointedly ignored their doing so, remained aloof when fourth parties tried to shine a light on it in international forums, and quietly announced our tacit acceptance of Saudi atrocities by continuing our policies of close tactical, operational, and logistical support of said bombings.
Oh, and maybe when someone was so gauche as to bring it up, we started trying to set up unconvincing moral calculus IOT diminish what the Saudis have done.
quietly announced our tacit acceptance of Saudi atrocities by continuing our policies of close tactical, operational, and logistical support of said bombings.
Is this your assumption, or do you know whether or not some effort is being made behind the scenes to persuade a more humane approach by the Saudis?
Although I know that you believe that you and Donald Johnson represent the truly humane among us, and everyone else is a sociopath, it’s possible that people are choosing certain policies because other policies would yield more atrocities.
Or maybe you actually are the last people with a conscience. In which case, maybe you should run for office, or otherwise get your hands on actual policymaking.
quietly announced our tacit acceptance of Saudi atrocities by continuing our policies of close tactical, operational, and logistical support of said bombings.
Is this your assumption, or do you know whether or not some effort is being made behind the scenes to persuade a more humane approach by the Saudis?
Although I know that you believe that you and Donald Johnson represent the truly humane among us, and everyone else is a sociopath, it’s possible that people are choosing certain policies because other policies would yield more atrocities.
Or maybe you actually are the last people with a conscience. In which case, maybe you should run for office, or otherwise get your hands on actual policymaking.
quietly announced our tacit acceptance of Saudi atrocities by continuing our policies of close tactical, operational, and logistical support of said bombings.
Is this your assumption, or do you know whether or not some effort is being made behind the scenes to persuade a more humane approach by the Saudis?
Although I know that you believe that you and Donald Johnson represent the truly humane among us, and everyone else is a sociopath, it’s possible that people are choosing certain policies because other policies would yield more atrocities.
Or maybe you actually are the last people with a conscience. In which case, maybe you should run for office, or otherwise get your hands on actual policymaking.
Is this your assumption, or do you know whether or not some effort is being made behind the scenes to persuade a more humane approach by the Saudis?
do you know that any such attempt is being made?
Is this your assumption, or do you know whether or not some effort is being made behind the scenes to persuade a more humane approach by the Saudis?
do you know that any such attempt is being made?
Is this your assumption, or do you know whether or not some effort is being made behind the scenes to persuade a more humane approach by the Saudis?
do you know that any such attempt is being made?
do you know that any such attempt is being made?
Do you know that it’s not? Do you know what kinds of negotiations and compromises and sensitive information has passed between United States policymakers and the Saudi government as we have tried to 1) conclude the Iran nuclear accords, 2) fight ISIL, 3) deal with our allies’ fears about the Syrian refugee crisis, 4) fight al Qaida, 5) handle the Israeli hawks, etc? Does it occur to anyone that the world is a difficult place, and the timing isn’t right, perhaps, to be making public proclamations about the Saudis when we’re trying to enlist their assistance in matters that aren’t necessarily in their interest? Or maybe all of our diplomacy should be conducted behind a loudspeaker so that the people here can better second guess everyone’s motives.
My own belief is that to the very limited extent that we are supporting Saudi Arabia with intelligence and logistical support, we probably aren’t suggesting that they bomb civilian targets. Or maybe our government workers are, in fact, all sociopaths. Maybe the Rethugs are right that we should starve the beast.
do you know that any such attempt is being made?
Do you know that it’s not? Do you know what kinds of negotiations and compromises and sensitive information has passed between United States policymakers and the Saudi government as we have tried to 1) conclude the Iran nuclear accords, 2) fight ISIL, 3) deal with our allies’ fears about the Syrian refugee crisis, 4) fight al Qaida, 5) handle the Israeli hawks, etc? Does it occur to anyone that the world is a difficult place, and the timing isn’t right, perhaps, to be making public proclamations about the Saudis when we’re trying to enlist their assistance in matters that aren’t necessarily in their interest? Or maybe all of our diplomacy should be conducted behind a loudspeaker so that the people here can better second guess everyone’s motives.
My own belief is that to the very limited extent that we are supporting Saudi Arabia with intelligence and logistical support, we probably aren’t suggesting that they bomb civilian targets. Or maybe our government workers are, in fact, all sociopaths. Maybe the Rethugs are right that we should starve the beast.
do you know that any such attempt is being made?
Do you know that it’s not? Do you know what kinds of negotiations and compromises and sensitive information has passed between United States policymakers and the Saudi government as we have tried to 1) conclude the Iran nuclear accords, 2) fight ISIL, 3) deal with our allies’ fears about the Syrian refugee crisis, 4) fight al Qaida, 5) handle the Israeli hawks, etc? Does it occur to anyone that the world is a difficult place, and the timing isn’t right, perhaps, to be making public proclamations about the Saudis when we’re trying to enlist their assistance in matters that aren’t necessarily in their interest? Or maybe all of our diplomacy should be conducted behind a loudspeaker so that the people here can better second guess everyone’s motives.
My own belief is that to the very limited extent that we are supporting Saudi Arabia with intelligence and logistical support, we probably aren’t suggesting that they bomb civilian targets. Or maybe our government workers are, in fact, all sociopaths. Maybe the Rethugs are right that we should starve the beast.
Do you know that it’s not?
I don’t know anything about it whatsoever, and I’m likewise not making any claims about it either way.
Because I don’t know. It’s not a loop I’m in.
In fact, I know very little about the conflict between the Saudis and the Houthis.
The only thing about all of this that I feel I can say with confidence is that it’s not in our interest to be involved in or associated with actions that are arguably war crimes.
And without ascribing specific intent to anybody in our military or policy-making apparatus, in spite of whatever we had in mind by supporting the Saudis in this, it appears that among the outcomes are some that are not in our favor.
So maybe it deserves more or better attention. All aspects of it, including our military and logistical alliance with the Saudis in the first place.
Lastly, I don’t know, but FWIW I would guess, that it’s really not in our interest to be strongly on the side of either the Sunnis or the Shia in their more-than-thousand-year-long cage match.
Do you know that it’s not?
I don’t know anything about it whatsoever, and I’m likewise not making any claims about it either way.
Because I don’t know. It’s not a loop I’m in.
In fact, I know very little about the conflict between the Saudis and the Houthis.
The only thing about all of this that I feel I can say with confidence is that it’s not in our interest to be involved in or associated with actions that are arguably war crimes.
And without ascribing specific intent to anybody in our military or policy-making apparatus, in spite of whatever we had in mind by supporting the Saudis in this, it appears that among the outcomes are some that are not in our favor.
So maybe it deserves more or better attention. All aspects of it, including our military and logistical alliance with the Saudis in the first place.
Lastly, I don’t know, but FWIW I would guess, that it’s really not in our interest to be strongly on the side of either the Sunnis or the Shia in their more-than-thousand-year-long cage match.
Do you know that it’s not?
I don’t know anything about it whatsoever, and I’m likewise not making any claims about it either way.
Because I don’t know. It’s not a loop I’m in.
In fact, I know very little about the conflict between the Saudis and the Houthis.
The only thing about all of this that I feel I can say with confidence is that it’s not in our interest to be involved in or associated with actions that are arguably war crimes.
And without ascribing specific intent to anybody in our military or policy-making apparatus, in spite of whatever we had in mind by supporting the Saudis in this, it appears that among the outcomes are some that are not in our favor.
So maybe it deserves more or better attention. All aspects of it, including our military and logistical alliance with the Saudis in the first place.
Lastly, I don’t know, but FWIW I would guess, that it’s really not in our interest to be strongly on the side of either the Sunnis or the Shia in their more-than-thousand-year-long cage match.
They were never for starving THAT part of the beast (that’s why they hate the Pauls).
—
I don’t say that the Russians are directly involved in the Yemen situation but uncertainty about oil supply through the straits would be to their advantage since it would drive the price up. Russia is suffering economically from the current low oil and gas prices.
—
As for lack of info about attempts at mitigation of atrocities committed by US proteges, history points more at absence of that as the best case and tacit support of such unsavoury behaviour as the common one. Whose is the canine offspring and all that.
They were never for starving THAT part of the beast (that’s why they hate the Pauls).
—
I don’t say that the Russians are directly involved in the Yemen situation but uncertainty about oil supply through the straits would be to their advantage since it would drive the price up. Russia is suffering economically from the current low oil and gas prices.
—
As for lack of info about attempts at mitigation of atrocities committed by US proteges, history points more at absence of that as the best case and tacit support of such unsavoury behaviour as the common one. Whose is the canine offspring and all that.
They were never for starving THAT part of the beast (that’s why they hate the Pauls).
—
I don’t say that the Russians are directly involved in the Yemen situation but uncertainty about oil supply through the straits would be to their advantage since it would drive the price up. Russia is suffering economically from the current low oil and gas prices.
—
As for lack of info about attempts at mitigation of atrocities committed by US proteges, history points more at absence of that as the best case and tacit support of such unsavoury behaviour as the common one. Whose is the canine offspring and all that.
Although I know that you believe that you and Donald Johnson represent the truly humane among us, and everyone else is a sociopath…
Although I know that you believe you represent the truly realistic among us, and everyone else is a childishly naive Pollyanna…
…it’s possible that people are choosing certain policies because other policies would yield more atrocities.
…and it’s possible they’re not. Nothing in particular suggests they are. History – recent and less-recent – suggests very much that they’re not. As usual, your approach to this policy matter is faith-based. But I’m naive for not accepting that…
My own belief is that to the very limited extent that we are supporting Saudi Arabia with intelligence and logistical support, we probably aren’t suggesting that they bomb civilian targets.
From DJ’s link above, quoted at length so you’re more likely to read it:
But please, tell us more about the “very limited extent that we are supporting Saudi Arabia”, and how they’re most certainly pressuring the Saudi coalition to limit and avoid civilian casualties.
Although I know that you believe that you and Donald Johnson represent the truly humane among us, and everyone else is a sociopath…
Although I know that you believe you represent the truly realistic among us, and everyone else is a childishly naive Pollyanna…
…it’s possible that people are choosing certain policies because other policies would yield more atrocities.
…and it’s possible they’re not. Nothing in particular suggests they are. History – recent and less-recent – suggests very much that they’re not. As usual, your approach to this policy matter is faith-based. But I’m naive for not accepting that…
My own belief is that to the very limited extent that we are supporting Saudi Arabia with intelligence and logistical support, we probably aren’t suggesting that they bomb civilian targets.
From DJ’s link above, quoted at length so you’re more likely to read it:
But please, tell us more about the “very limited extent that we are supporting Saudi Arabia”, and how they’re most certainly pressuring the Saudi coalition to limit and avoid civilian casualties.
Although I know that you believe that you and Donald Johnson represent the truly humane among us, and everyone else is a sociopath…
Although I know that you believe you represent the truly realistic among us, and everyone else is a childishly naive Pollyanna…
…it’s possible that people are choosing certain policies because other policies would yield more atrocities.
…and it’s possible they’re not. Nothing in particular suggests they are. History – recent and less-recent – suggests very much that they’re not. As usual, your approach to this policy matter is faith-based. But I’m naive for not accepting that…
My own belief is that to the very limited extent that we are supporting Saudi Arabia with intelligence and logistical support, we probably aren’t suggesting that they bomb civilian targets.
From DJ’s link above, quoted at length so you’re more likely to read it:
But please, tell us more about the “very limited extent that we are supporting Saudi Arabia”, and how they’re most certainly pressuring the Saudi coalition to limit and avoid civilian casualties.
“very limited extent that we are supporting Saudi Arabia”
The things that are described in the Salon article (Salon being a publication I do not automatically trust, but I’ll take this article as well-researched for the sake of argument) fall into the categories of intelligence and logistical support. (Arms sales are a given – they’ve been happening throughout my almost sixty year lifetime, and we’re not by far the only sellers.)
As to “targeting assistance” do you know what that means? I’m going to guess that it means intelligence, possibly drone intelligence. That the Americans are asking the Saudis to investigate incidences of civilian casualties and making results public supports my point that Americans are trying to reduce such instances.
Without American intelligence and assistance, it’s likely that the Saudis would still be able to conduct warfare but perhaps even more “untargeted”. Is that what we want? It sure would make us feel better to be unscathed and more able to point fingers at the Saudis.
Lastly, I don’t know, but FWIW I would guess, that it’s really not in our interest to be strongly on the side of either the Sunnis or the Shia in their more-than-thousand-year-long cage match.
I agree that we should stay as far as possible from religious wars, but these religions have formed theocracies, nations, many of whose interests are either aligned or in conflict with ours. Their conflicts with each other may be based on religion, but their behavior has consequences to international security.
I think it’s weird that when people’s knowledge of a regional conflict is based on an article or two, the go-to position is “America must be screwing up badly!” This in spite of a dramatic and historic diplomatic achievement with regard to one of our recent virulent adversaries, Iran.
“very limited extent that we are supporting Saudi Arabia”
The things that are described in the Salon article (Salon being a publication I do not automatically trust, but I’ll take this article as well-researched for the sake of argument) fall into the categories of intelligence and logistical support. (Arms sales are a given – they’ve been happening throughout my almost sixty year lifetime, and we’re not by far the only sellers.)
As to “targeting assistance” do you know what that means? I’m going to guess that it means intelligence, possibly drone intelligence. That the Americans are asking the Saudis to investigate incidences of civilian casualties and making results public supports my point that Americans are trying to reduce such instances.
Without American intelligence and assistance, it’s likely that the Saudis would still be able to conduct warfare but perhaps even more “untargeted”. Is that what we want? It sure would make us feel better to be unscathed and more able to point fingers at the Saudis.
Lastly, I don’t know, but FWIW I would guess, that it’s really not in our interest to be strongly on the side of either the Sunnis or the Shia in their more-than-thousand-year-long cage match.
I agree that we should stay as far as possible from religious wars, but these religions have formed theocracies, nations, many of whose interests are either aligned or in conflict with ours. Their conflicts with each other may be based on religion, but their behavior has consequences to international security.
I think it’s weird that when people’s knowledge of a regional conflict is based on an article or two, the go-to position is “America must be screwing up badly!” This in spite of a dramatic and historic diplomatic achievement with regard to one of our recent virulent adversaries, Iran.
“very limited extent that we are supporting Saudi Arabia”
The things that are described in the Salon article (Salon being a publication I do not automatically trust, but I’ll take this article as well-researched for the sake of argument) fall into the categories of intelligence and logistical support. (Arms sales are a given – they’ve been happening throughout my almost sixty year lifetime, and we’re not by far the only sellers.)
As to “targeting assistance” do you know what that means? I’m going to guess that it means intelligence, possibly drone intelligence. That the Americans are asking the Saudis to investigate incidences of civilian casualties and making results public supports my point that Americans are trying to reduce such instances.
Without American intelligence and assistance, it’s likely that the Saudis would still be able to conduct warfare but perhaps even more “untargeted”. Is that what we want? It sure would make us feel better to be unscathed and more able to point fingers at the Saudis.
Lastly, I don’t know, but FWIW I would guess, that it’s really not in our interest to be strongly on the side of either the Sunnis or the Shia in their more-than-thousand-year-long cage match.
I agree that we should stay as far as possible from religious wars, but these religions have formed theocracies, nations, many of whose interests are either aligned or in conflict with ours. Their conflicts with each other may be based on religion, but their behavior has consequences to international security.
I think it’s weird that when people’s knowledge of a regional conflict is based on an article or two, the go-to position is “America must be screwing up badly!” This in spite of a dramatic and historic diplomatic achievement with regard to one of our recent virulent adversaries, Iran.
By the way, let’s just ignore the fact that there may be other complicated pieces to our relationship with Saudi Arabia and Iran, issues that are being handled deftly by John Kerry. But as Obama is incurring the wrath of Iran’s enemies by lifting sanctions on Iran and Iran is sending plutonium to Russia as part of the Iran deal, you guys expect John Kerry to get on a megaphone and chastise the Saudis. Unbelievable.
By the way, let’s just ignore the fact that there may be other complicated pieces to our relationship with Saudi Arabia and Iran, issues that are being handled deftly by John Kerry. But as Obama is incurring the wrath of Iran’s enemies by lifting sanctions on Iran and Iran is sending plutonium to Russia as part of the Iran deal, you guys expect John Kerry to get on a megaphone and chastise the Saudis. Unbelievable.
By the way, let’s just ignore the fact that there may be other complicated pieces to our relationship with Saudi Arabia and Iran, issues that are being handled deftly by John Kerry. But as Obama is incurring the wrath of Iran’s enemies by lifting sanctions on Iran and Iran is sending plutonium to Russia as part of the Iran deal, you guys expect John Kerry to get on a megaphone and chastise the Saudis. Unbelievable.
My standards are pretty low, sapient. If the US is assisting countries as they commit war crimes, as a society we should be disturbed and bothered. People should discuss it. It ought to be front page news, common knowledge. It isn’t.
And I already granted that the Administration might have good intentions, but pressures, including domestic ones, might prevent them from fully expressing their dismay when the Israelis or the Saudis blow up civilians. Which is why ordinary people should try to counterbalance those pressures by expressing their own outrage as our allies use American- supplied weapons to commit war crimes. Maybe that’s naive, though I doubt it. But in that case, Americans need to lose their feelings of innocence. If we are going to support war criminals we should own up to it and stop acting like we have the right to be shocked when someone commits an act of terror against us.
My standards are pretty low, sapient. If the US is assisting countries as they commit war crimes, as a society we should be disturbed and bothered. People should discuss it. It ought to be front page news, common knowledge. It isn’t.
And I already granted that the Administration might have good intentions, but pressures, including domestic ones, might prevent them from fully expressing their dismay when the Israelis or the Saudis blow up civilians. Which is why ordinary people should try to counterbalance those pressures by expressing their own outrage as our allies use American- supplied weapons to commit war crimes. Maybe that’s naive, though I doubt it. But in that case, Americans need to lose their feelings of innocence. If we are going to support war criminals we should own up to it and stop acting like we have the right to be shocked when someone commits an act of terror against us.
My standards are pretty low, sapient. If the US is assisting countries as they commit war crimes, as a society we should be disturbed and bothered. People should discuss it. It ought to be front page news, common knowledge. It isn’t.
And I already granted that the Administration might have good intentions, but pressures, including domestic ones, might prevent them from fully expressing their dismay when the Israelis or the Saudis blow up civilians. Which is why ordinary people should try to counterbalance those pressures by expressing their own outrage as our allies use American- supplied weapons to commit war crimes. Maybe that’s naive, though I doubt it. But in that case, Americans need to lose their feelings of innocence. If we are going to support war criminals we should own up to it and stop acting like we have the right to be shocked when someone commits an act of terror against us.
And I read your links. Nothing new there– yes, we are aiding the Saudis because they are afraid of Iran, see the Yemen war as necessary for their security, etc… Well alright then. No reason why any American should breathe a word against them as they blow up civilians.
I’m curious– if people made a big stink about the war in Yemen but prefaced every remark with “I am certain Obama is doing the right thing in supporting these war criminals, because they are terrified by the Iranians”, would that be okay with you?
And I read your links. Nothing new there– yes, we are aiding the Saudis because they are afraid of Iran, see the Yemen war as necessary for their security, etc… Well alright then. No reason why any American should breathe a word against them as they blow up civilians.
I’m curious– if people made a big stink about the war in Yemen but prefaced every remark with “I am certain Obama is doing the right thing in supporting these war criminals, because they are terrified by the Iranians”, would that be okay with you?
And I read your links. Nothing new there– yes, we are aiding the Saudis because they are afraid of Iran, see the Yemen war as necessary for their security, etc… Well alright then. No reason why any American should breathe a word against them as they blow up civilians.
I’m curious– if people made a big stink about the war in Yemen but prefaced every remark with “I am certain Obama is doing the right thing in supporting these war criminals, because they are terrified by the Iranians”, would that be okay with you?
these religions have formed theocracies, nations, many of whose interests are either aligned or in conflict with ours.
Frankly I don’t see much difference between Sunnis and Shia as far as this goes.
To the degree that the Saudi’s interests are ‘aligned with ours’ it seems to me that it’s based on American companies financial interests in extracting and processing oil.
I don’t see them and us having many interests in common beyond that.
Money talks, as they say, but IMO we should be more circumspect about who we decide is going to be our BFF’s.
these religions have formed theocracies, nations, many of whose interests are either aligned or in conflict with ours.
Frankly I don’t see much difference between Sunnis and Shia as far as this goes.
To the degree that the Saudi’s interests are ‘aligned with ours’ it seems to me that it’s based on American companies financial interests in extracting and processing oil.
I don’t see them and us having many interests in common beyond that.
Money talks, as they say, but IMO we should be more circumspect about who we decide is going to be our BFF’s.
these religions have formed theocracies, nations, many of whose interests are either aligned or in conflict with ours.
Frankly I don’t see much difference between Sunnis and Shia as far as this goes.
To the degree that the Saudi’s interests are ‘aligned with ours’ it seems to me that it’s based on American companies financial interests in extracting and processing oil.
I don’t see them and us having many interests in common beyond that.
Money talks, as they say, but IMO we should be more circumspect about who we decide is going to be our BFF’s.
Which is why ordinary people should try to counterbalance those pressures by expressing their own outrage as our allies use American- supplied weapons to commit war crimes.
I think it’s fine that “ordinary people” express outrage, or whatever else they feel. It would be even better if before expressing outrage, they make an attempt to understand what’s happening, and then direct their outrage appropriately. If “ordinary people” believe that the Saudis aren’t running their war properly, they should say so in loud choruses. If they have information that the United States is assisting, not only in a war, but in atrocities, they should hold the United States accountable. I’m not seeing evidence that the United States is encouraging war crimes. Its participation is as likely deterring the Saudis as encouraging them.
The Yemen war doesn’t seem to be going all that well for the Saudis. The United States likely has provided minimal assistance in exchange for Saudi support for the Iran deal (or something similar).
Go ahead and be outraged, and proclaim the “foreign policy establishment” to be misguided. My guess is that your concerns are shared by people who are trying to find the best way forward.
Which is why ordinary people should try to counterbalance those pressures by expressing their own outrage as our allies use American- supplied weapons to commit war crimes.
I think it’s fine that “ordinary people” express outrage, or whatever else they feel. It would be even better if before expressing outrage, they make an attempt to understand what’s happening, and then direct their outrage appropriately. If “ordinary people” believe that the Saudis aren’t running their war properly, they should say so in loud choruses. If they have information that the United States is assisting, not only in a war, but in atrocities, they should hold the United States accountable. I’m not seeing evidence that the United States is encouraging war crimes. Its participation is as likely deterring the Saudis as encouraging them.
The Yemen war doesn’t seem to be going all that well for the Saudis. The United States likely has provided minimal assistance in exchange for Saudi support for the Iran deal (or something similar).
Go ahead and be outraged, and proclaim the “foreign policy establishment” to be misguided. My guess is that your concerns are shared by people who are trying to find the best way forward.
Which is why ordinary people should try to counterbalance those pressures by expressing their own outrage as our allies use American- supplied weapons to commit war crimes.
I think it’s fine that “ordinary people” express outrage, or whatever else they feel. It would be even better if before expressing outrage, they make an attempt to understand what’s happening, and then direct their outrage appropriately. If “ordinary people” believe that the Saudis aren’t running their war properly, they should say so in loud choruses. If they have information that the United States is assisting, not only in a war, but in atrocities, they should hold the United States accountable. I’m not seeing evidence that the United States is encouraging war crimes. Its participation is as likely deterring the Saudis as encouraging them.
The Yemen war doesn’t seem to be going all that well for the Saudis. The United States likely has provided minimal assistance in exchange for Saudi support for the Iran deal (or something similar).
Go ahead and be outraged, and proclaim the “foreign policy establishment” to be misguided. My guess is that your concerns are shared by people who are trying to find the best way forward.
To the degree that the Saudi’s interests are ‘aligned with ours’ it seems to me that it’s based on American companies financial interests in extracting and processing oil.
Their interests are also aligned with ours because they’re one of the more stable countries in the region, and they don’t threaten Israel. Yes, I know that they’re also hugely problematic and fractured, and that there are huge elements that support terrorism, etc., so sure – it would be way better if they were more progressive and reliable. But we’re probably better off with them as our ally than our enemy.
To the degree that the Saudi’s interests are ‘aligned with ours’ it seems to me that it’s based on American companies financial interests in extracting and processing oil.
Their interests are also aligned with ours because they’re one of the more stable countries in the region, and they don’t threaten Israel. Yes, I know that they’re also hugely problematic and fractured, and that there are huge elements that support terrorism, etc., so sure – it would be way better if they were more progressive and reliable. But we’re probably better off with them as our ally than our enemy.
To the degree that the Saudi’s interests are ‘aligned with ours’ it seems to me that it’s based on American companies financial interests in extracting and processing oil.
Their interests are also aligned with ours because they’re one of the more stable countries in the region, and they don’t threaten Israel. Yes, I know that they’re also hugely problematic and fractured, and that there are huge elements that support terrorism, etc., so sure – it would be way better if they were more progressive and reliable. But we’re probably better off with them as our ally than our enemy.
I’m not convinced how much their interests align with ours. Consider that a huge amount of Saudi money goes to build and staff mosques all around the world. Mosques which provide an extremely fundamentalist version of Islam. The version which generates most of the Islamist terrorists around the world.
I understand the Saudi-internal political considerations which lead them to do so. (On the evidence, the vast majority of the Saudi ruling elite are, too put it mildly, skeptical of that kind of Islam.) But it would seem to put our interests rather far from theirs. Indeed, I would say our interests are rather closer to Iran’s than to Saudi Arabia’s.
I’m not convinced how much their interests align with ours. Consider that a huge amount of Saudi money goes to build and staff mosques all around the world. Mosques which provide an extremely fundamentalist version of Islam. The version which generates most of the Islamist terrorists around the world.
I understand the Saudi-internal political considerations which lead them to do so. (On the evidence, the vast majority of the Saudi ruling elite are, too put it mildly, skeptical of that kind of Islam.) But it would seem to put our interests rather far from theirs. Indeed, I would say our interests are rather closer to Iran’s than to Saudi Arabia’s.
I’m not convinced how much their interests align with ours. Consider that a huge amount of Saudi money goes to build and staff mosques all around the world. Mosques which provide an extremely fundamentalist version of Islam. The version which generates most of the Islamist terrorists around the world.
I understand the Saudi-internal political considerations which lead them to do so. (On the evidence, the vast majority of the Saudi ruling elite are, too put it mildly, skeptical of that kind of Islam.) But it would seem to put our interests rather far from theirs. Indeed, I would say our interests are rather closer to Iran’s than to Saudi Arabia’s.
Hey, that’s great sapient. It just so happens that the human rights groups have been calling on the US, the Saudis, and the UN to investigate a number of seemingly criminal air strikes, but they seem strangely uninterested. HRW did its own investigation, probably because they don’t have a sufficiently deep understanding of the needs of statecraft or why it’s actually a good idea for America to be connected to the killing of civilians. Silly people.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/11/26/yemen-coalition-fails-investigate-unlawful-airstrikes
Hey, that’s great sapient. It just so happens that the human rights groups have been calling on the US, the Saudis, and the UN to investigate a number of seemingly criminal air strikes, but they seem strangely uninterested. HRW did its own investigation, probably because they don’t have a sufficiently deep understanding of the needs of statecraft or why it’s actually a good idea for America to be connected to the killing of civilians. Silly people.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/11/26/yemen-coalition-fails-investigate-unlawful-airstrikes
Hey, that’s great sapient. It just so happens that the human rights groups have been calling on the US, the Saudis, and the UN to investigate a number of seemingly criminal air strikes, but they seem strangely uninterested. HRW did its own investigation, probably because they don’t have a sufficiently deep understanding of the needs of statecraft or why it’s actually a good idea for America to be connected to the killing of civilians. Silly people.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/11/26/yemen-coalition-fails-investigate-unlawful-airstrikes
Operation Bug Splat:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/12/28/speaking-of-children-killed-with-no-accountability/
From the air, we Americans look like bugs too.
Exceptional bugs, but still.
In fact, from ground level, from the conservative cop point of view and the aerial Republican view of Obamacare beneficiaries, as expressed by the murderers running for President, their fellow Americans are just so many bugs as well.
Operation Bug Splat:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/12/28/speaking-of-children-killed-with-no-accountability/
From the air, we Americans look like bugs too.
Exceptional bugs, but still.
In fact, from ground level, from the conservative cop point of view and the aerial Republican view of Obamacare beneficiaries, as expressed by the murderers running for President, their fellow Americans are just so many bugs as well.
Operation Bug Splat:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/12/28/speaking-of-children-killed-with-no-accountability/
From the air, we Americans look like bugs too.
Exceptional bugs, but still.
In fact, from ground level, from the conservative cop point of view and the aerial Republican view of Obamacare beneficiaries, as expressed by the murderers running for President, their fellow Americans are just so many bugs as well.
The more I read of sapient, the more I am reminded of “Jim – Who Ran Away From His Nurse And Was Eaten By A Lion,” a classic by Hilaire Belloc. Those who do not wish to read the whole poem may focus on the last couplet:
And always keep a-hold of Nurse
For fear of finding something worse.
The more I read of sapient, the more I am reminded of “Jim – Who Ran Away From His Nurse And Was Eaten By A Lion,” a classic by Hilaire Belloc. Those who do not wish to read the whole poem may focus on the last couplet:
And always keep a-hold of Nurse
For fear of finding something worse.
The more I read of sapient, the more I am reminded of “Jim – Who Ran Away From His Nurse And Was Eaten By A Lion,” a classic by Hilaire Belloc. Those who do not wish to read the whole poem may focus on the last couplet:
And always keep a-hold of Nurse
For fear of finding something worse.
Don’t forget the other quote for which Belloc is known:
“It is sometimes necessary to lie damnably in the interests of the nation.”
Don’t forget the other quote for which Belloc is known:
“It is sometimes necessary to lie damnably in the interests of the nation.”
Don’t forget the other quote for which Belloc is known:
“It is sometimes necessary to lie damnably in the interests of the nation.”
Their interests are also aligned with ours because they’re one of the more stable countries in the region, and they don’t threaten Israel.
I’m basically on the same page as wj as far as this goes. FWIW.
I also am on the same page as bobbyp when he says it’s time to consider, and possibly re-consider, what our interests are in the middle east.
And I agree with Donald when he points out that our support for the Saudis in their war against the Houthis is dragging us into things we might prefer not to be dragged into.
I can say all of those things without clutching any pearls, or claiming any kind of moralistic high ground, or being knee-jerk anti-American.
It’s really far from clear to me that our position in the middle east is advancing our own best interests. In a number of ways.
Their interests are also aligned with ours because they’re one of the more stable countries in the region, and they don’t threaten Israel.
I’m basically on the same page as wj as far as this goes. FWIW.
I also am on the same page as bobbyp when he says it’s time to consider, and possibly re-consider, what our interests are in the middle east.
And I agree with Donald when he points out that our support for the Saudis in their war against the Houthis is dragging us into things we might prefer not to be dragged into.
I can say all of those things without clutching any pearls, or claiming any kind of moralistic high ground, or being knee-jerk anti-American.
It’s really far from clear to me that our position in the middle east is advancing our own best interests. In a number of ways.
Their interests are also aligned with ours because they’re one of the more stable countries in the region, and they don’t threaten Israel.
I’m basically on the same page as wj as far as this goes. FWIW.
I also am on the same page as bobbyp when he says it’s time to consider, and possibly re-consider, what our interests are in the middle east.
And I agree with Donald when he points out that our support for the Saudis in their war against the Houthis is dragging us into things we might prefer not to be dragged into.
I can say all of those things without clutching any pearls, or claiming any kind of moralistic high ground, or being knee-jerk anti-American.
It’s really far from clear to me that our position in the middle east is advancing our own best interests. In a number of ways.
Iirc Dick’s and George’s excellent Iraq adventure was in part motivated by the desire to be less dependent on the Saudis and to find a less controversial base for US troops in the region (i.e. to move away from the Sunni holy places, Shiite sensibilities could be safely ignored of course).
Iirc Dick’s and George’s excellent Iraq adventure was in part motivated by the desire to be less dependent on the Saudis and to find a less controversial base for US troops in the region (i.e. to move away from the Sunni holy places, Shiite sensibilities could be safely ignored of course).
Iirc Dick’s and George’s excellent Iraq adventure was in part motivated by the desire to be less dependent on the Saudis and to find a less controversial base for US troops in the region (i.e. to move away from the Sunni holy places, Shiite sensibilities could be safely ignored of course).
Not directly relevant to Yemen, but I found this long piece on the justifications for leveling cities in the Korean War.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/americas-ethics-of-bombing-civilians-after-world-war-ii-massive-casualties-and-the-targeting-civilians-in-the-korean-war/5402007
Basically the author points out that to justify such things Americans have to emphasize their lack of intent to kill civilians. Once you have persuaded yourself that your intentions are good and you are only trying to hit factories or other militarily significant targets, you can destroy entire cities and feel blameless.
With precision weaponry that is harder to justify ( unless you are Ted Cruz), but the way we can rationalize support for the Saudis bears a certain resemblance here. Someone should take out a patent on good intentions–America would have to pay a pretty hefty fee.
Not directly relevant to Yemen, but I found this long piece on the justifications for leveling cities in the Korean War.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/americas-ethics-of-bombing-civilians-after-world-war-ii-massive-casualties-and-the-targeting-civilians-in-the-korean-war/5402007
Basically the author points out that to justify such things Americans have to emphasize their lack of intent to kill civilians. Once you have persuaded yourself that your intentions are good and you are only trying to hit factories or other militarily significant targets, you can destroy entire cities and feel blameless.
With precision weaponry that is harder to justify ( unless you are Ted Cruz), but the way we can rationalize support for the Saudis bears a certain resemblance here. Someone should take out a patent on good intentions–America would have to pay a pretty hefty fee.
Not directly relevant to Yemen, but I found this long piece on the justifications for leveling cities in the Korean War.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/americas-ethics-of-bombing-civilians-after-world-war-ii-massive-casualties-and-the-targeting-civilians-in-the-korean-war/5402007
Basically the author points out that to justify such things Americans have to emphasize their lack of intent to kill civilians. Once you have persuaded yourself that your intentions are good and you are only trying to hit factories or other militarily significant targets, you can destroy entire cities and feel blameless.
With precision weaponry that is harder to justify ( unless you are Ted Cruz), but the way we can rationalize support for the Saudis bears a certain resemblance here. Someone should take out a patent on good intentions–America would have to pay a pretty hefty fee.
“It’s really far from clear to me that our position in the middle east is advancing our own best interests. In a number of ways.”
“advancing” doesn’t seem quite the right term for our Middle East policy since 1948.
Ah, but David Petraeus has a plan of advancement, just like the previous plans of advancement:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/qatar-funding-al-qaeda-why-111900369.html;_ylt=AwrC1C20nIJWFVgAo1qTmYlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMDgyYjJiBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw–
See, this is what passes for “advancement”. Help create a rude, murderous Beast, arm it to the teeth, and then when it turns on us, find another rude, murderous Beast, in the spirit of desperate realpolitik, to counter the former one.
Rinse and repeat.
I predict within five years something much worse than ISIS will emerge and we will cozy up to the current beheaders to protect our Middle Eastern scalps.
And it is not merely a Muslim Sunni-Shia bloodfeud problem. There is a growing radical conservative crypto-religious Hindu movement extolling mass murder on the Indian sub-Continent, not only against Muslims, but against the moderate, civilized Hindu majority.
There are indications that this radical Hindu movement is in some ways tacitly supported and encouraged by the current, conservative, crypto-religious Hindu government to advance its own conservative designs on the Nation.
Meanwhile, radical, murderous rabbis in Israel, assisted by radical, murderous, American Republican operatives in the Israeli government are turning their ire, not only on Palestinians, who have their own murderous, radical, crypto-religious agenda, but also on moderate Israelis and the Israeli Left.
Then we have our own murderous, crypto-religious impulses on the ascendancy in this country.
A good many of them spout their idiocy in Republican debates on the f*cking TV.
As to them: “Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon …. no matter how good you are, the bird is going to to shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway.”
Let’s not exclude Vlad Putin among the crypto-religious murderers, if we consider that he like, all of the above, many of whom express admiration for THAT bull pigeon, wish to restore an imaginary, golden absolutist ahistorical past to their countries and societies and no savagery will be excluded in achieving that restoration, including here.
It’s a worldwide movement of absolutism imposed by the gun and the machete (the latter of which I plan to carry into Texas restaurants the first chance I get, in case I’m served a particularly tough piece of ideological animal flesh) and ultimately by drone and high-altitude bombers.
Not taking sides here, necessarily, just stepping back and taking a a drone’s eye view of the larger, existential threat most of the world faces from the growing (in my terms) conservative crypto-religious restoration movements throughout, who can’t wait to kill each other and then move on to eradicate all moderation and progress in their respective societies.
“It’s really far from clear to me that our position in the middle east is advancing our own best interests. In a number of ways.”
“advancing” doesn’t seem quite the right term for our Middle East policy since 1948.
Ah, but David Petraeus has a plan of advancement, just like the previous plans of advancement:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/qatar-funding-al-qaeda-why-111900369.html;_ylt=AwrC1C20nIJWFVgAo1qTmYlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMDgyYjJiBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw–
See, this is what passes for “advancement”. Help create a rude, murderous Beast, arm it to the teeth, and then when it turns on us, find another rude, murderous Beast, in the spirit of desperate realpolitik, to counter the former one.
Rinse and repeat.
I predict within five years something much worse than ISIS will emerge and we will cozy up to the current beheaders to protect our Middle Eastern scalps.
And it is not merely a Muslim Sunni-Shia bloodfeud problem. There is a growing radical conservative crypto-religious Hindu movement extolling mass murder on the Indian sub-Continent, not only against Muslims, but against the moderate, civilized Hindu majority.
There are indications that this radical Hindu movement is in some ways tacitly supported and encouraged by the current, conservative, crypto-religious Hindu government to advance its own conservative designs on the Nation.
Meanwhile, radical, murderous rabbis in Israel, assisted by radical, murderous, American Republican operatives in the Israeli government are turning their ire, not only on Palestinians, who have their own murderous, radical, crypto-religious agenda, but also on moderate Israelis and the Israeli Left.
Then we have our own murderous, crypto-religious impulses on the ascendancy in this country.
A good many of them spout their idiocy in Republican debates on the f*cking TV.
As to them: “Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon …. no matter how good you are, the bird is going to to shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway.”
Let’s not exclude Vlad Putin among the crypto-religious murderers, if we consider that he like, all of the above, many of whom express admiration for THAT bull pigeon, wish to restore an imaginary, golden absolutist ahistorical past to their countries and societies and no savagery will be excluded in achieving that restoration, including here.
It’s a worldwide movement of absolutism imposed by the gun and the machete (the latter of which I plan to carry into Texas restaurants the first chance I get, in case I’m served a particularly tough piece of ideological animal flesh) and ultimately by drone and high-altitude bombers.
Not taking sides here, necessarily, just stepping back and taking a a drone’s eye view of the larger, existential threat most of the world faces from the growing (in my terms) conservative crypto-religious restoration movements throughout, who can’t wait to kill each other and then move on to eradicate all moderation and progress in their respective societies.
“It’s really far from clear to me that our position in the middle east is advancing our own best interests. In a number of ways.”
“advancing” doesn’t seem quite the right term for our Middle East policy since 1948.
Ah, but David Petraeus has a plan of advancement, just like the previous plans of advancement:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/qatar-funding-al-qaeda-why-111900369.html;_ylt=AwrC1C20nIJWFVgAo1qTmYlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMDgyYjJiBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw–
See, this is what passes for “advancement”. Help create a rude, murderous Beast, arm it to the teeth, and then when it turns on us, find another rude, murderous Beast, in the spirit of desperate realpolitik, to counter the former one.
Rinse and repeat.
I predict within five years something much worse than ISIS will emerge and we will cozy up to the current beheaders to protect our Middle Eastern scalps.
And it is not merely a Muslim Sunni-Shia bloodfeud problem. There is a growing radical conservative crypto-religious Hindu movement extolling mass murder on the Indian sub-Continent, not only against Muslims, but against the moderate, civilized Hindu majority.
There are indications that this radical Hindu movement is in some ways tacitly supported and encouraged by the current, conservative, crypto-religious Hindu government to advance its own conservative designs on the Nation.
Meanwhile, radical, murderous rabbis in Israel, assisted by radical, murderous, American Republican operatives in the Israeli government are turning their ire, not only on Palestinians, who have their own murderous, radical, crypto-religious agenda, but also on moderate Israelis and the Israeli Left.
Then we have our own murderous, crypto-religious impulses on the ascendancy in this country.
A good many of them spout their idiocy in Republican debates on the f*cking TV.
As to them: “Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon …. no matter how good you are, the bird is going to to shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway.”
Let’s not exclude Vlad Putin among the crypto-religious murderers, if we consider that he like, all of the above, many of whom express admiration for THAT bull pigeon, wish to restore an imaginary, golden absolutist ahistorical past to their countries and societies and no savagery will be excluded in achieving that restoration, including here.
It’s a worldwide movement of absolutism imposed by the gun and the machete (the latter of which I plan to carry into Texas restaurants the first chance I get, in case I’m served a particularly tough piece of ideological animal flesh) and ultimately by drone and high-altitude bombers.
Not taking sides here, necessarily, just stepping back and taking a a drone’s eye view of the larger, existential threat most of the world faces from the growing (in my terms) conservative crypto-religious restoration movements throughout, who can’t wait to kill each other and then move on to eradicate all moderation and progress in their respective societies.
I also am on the same page as bobbyp when he says it’s time to consider, and possibly re-consider, what our interests are in the middle east.
I’m for that. Isn’t our reconsideration kind of ongoing, and don’t events really determine our interest?
Lt me see, the nuclear accord with Iran just happened. We used to be allied with Assad, then we weren’t. We used to be allied with Saddam Hussein, then we weren’t, then we ousted him, now we’re sort of cooperating. We used to be allied with Qaddafi, then we weren’t, then we were, then we weren’t. We used to be friends with Mubarak, then Arab Spring. In what way is our interest in the Middle East not constantly being reconsidered?
Obviously, we could say that we have no interest there n matter what happens and let chips fall where they may. If that’s what you’re suggesting, you should say so.
I also am on the same page as bobbyp when he says it’s time to consider, and possibly re-consider, what our interests are in the middle east.
I’m for that. Isn’t our reconsideration kind of ongoing, and don’t events really determine our interest?
Lt me see, the nuclear accord with Iran just happened. We used to be allied with Assad, then we weren’t. We used to be allied with Saddam Hussein, then we weren’t, then we ousted him, now we’re sort of cooperating. We used to be allied with Qaddafi, then we weren’t, then we were, then we weren’t. We used to be friends with Mubarak, then Arab Spring. In what way is our interest in the Middle East not constantly being reconsidered?
Obviously, we could say that we have no interest there n matter what happens and let chips fall where they may. If that’s what you’re suggesting, you should say so.
I also am on the same page as bobbyp when he says it’s time to consider, and possibly re-consider, what our interests are in the middle east.
I’m for that. Isn’t our reconsideration kind of ongoing, and don’t events really determine our interest?
Lt me see, the nuclear accord with Iran just happened. We used to be allied with Assad, then we weren’t. We used to be allied with Saddam Hussein, then we weren’t, then we ousted him, now we’re sort of cooperating. We used to be allied with Qaddafi, then we weren’t, then we were, then we weren’t. We used to be friends with Mubarak, then Arab Spring. In what way is our interest in the Middle East not constantly being reconsidered?
Obviously, we could say that we have no interest there n matter what happens and let chips fall where they may. If that’s what you’re suggesting, you should say so.
If that’s what you’re suggesting, you should say so.
I don’t have the time or inclination to be that tricky.
What I think I’m saying pretty explicitly here is that our support for the Saudis in their war with the Houthis appears to be involving us in things that aren’t in our best interest.
In case any of that wasn’t clear, I just said it again.
More broadly, it seems to me that a variety of folks that we either support or are very friendly with in the ME are not folks who necessarily value things that we value. Or, at least, claim to value.
Some of them support things – including terrorism – that are quite explicitly not in our interest. At least as I understand our interests.
I understand the realpolitik aspect of it, and I understand the economic aspects of it, but I also see and understand the other aspects of it.
The moral and ethical questions that Donald J, for example, raises seem, to me, to be worthy of consideration, rather than dismissal.
If that’s what you’re suggesting, you should say so.
I don’t have the time or inclination to be that tricky.
What I think I’m saying pretty explicitly here is that our support for the Saudis in their war with the Houthis appears to be involving us in things that aren’t in our best interest.
In case any of that wasn’t clear, I just said it again.
More broadly, it seems to me that a variety of folks that we either support or are very friendly with in the ME are not folks who necessarily value things that we value. Or, at least, claim to value.
Some of them support things – including terrorism – that are quite explicitly not in our interest. At least as I understand our interests.
I understand the realpolitik aspect of it, and I understand the economic aspects of it, but I also see and understand the other aspects of it.
The moral and ethical questions that Donald J, for example, raises seem, to me, to be worthy of consideration, rather than dismissal.
If that’s what you’re suggesting, you should say so.
I don’t have the time or inclination to be that tricky.
What I think I’m saying pretty explicitly here is that our support for the Saudis in their war with the Houthis appears to be involving us in things that aren’t in our best interest.
In case any of that wasn’t clear, I just said it again.
More broadly, it seems to me that a variety of folks that we either support or are very friendly with in the ME are not folks who necessarily value things that we value. Or, at least, claim to value.
Some of them support things – including terrorism – that are quite explicitly not in our interest. At least as I understand our interests.
I understand the realpolitik aspect of it, and I understand the economic aspects of it, but I also see and understand the other aspects of it.
The moral and ethical questions that Donald J, for example, raises seem, to me, to be worthy of consideration, rather than dismissal.
In what way is our interest in the Middle East not constantly being reconsidered?
The one constant in this litany of irresolute mendacity is the assertion that it is both our right and our duty to meddle in the affairs of these nations to advance national goals that largely go unstated.
Repeatedly reaping the whirlwind does not strike me as a prudent or wise foreign policy. Tying our interests to those of a corrupt feudal monarchy is simply repeating this pattern.
In what way is our interest in the Middle East not constantly being reconsidered?
The one constant in this litany of irresolute mendacity is the assertion that it is both our right and our duty to meddle in the affairs of these nations to advance national goals that largely go unstated.
Repeatedly reaping the whirlwind does not strike me as a prudent or wise foreign policy. Tying our interests to those of a corrupt feudal monarchy is simply repeating this pattern.
In what way is our interest in the Middle East not constantly being reconsidered?
The one constant in this litany of irresolute mendacity is the assertion that it is both our right and our duty to meddle in the affairs of these nations to advance national goals that largely go unstated.
Repeatedly reaping the whirlwind does not strike me as a prudent or wise foreign policy. Tying our interests to those of a corrupt feudal monarchy is simply repeating this pattern.
What I think I’m saying pretty explicitly here is that our support for the Saudis in their war with the Houthis appears to be involving us in things that aren’t in our best interest.
That might be true, unless there’s something we don’t know about why we’re involved, say, in order to gain Saudi support for something that is very emphatically in our interest (and in our interest that we have Saudi support) such as the Iran deal. Not to mention the fact that we don’t know what the deal would be without our support. Maybe we’re tipping the balance towards a more humane approach to the war, who knows. I don’t.
Maybe we should know. Maybe all diplomats should carry a microphone at all times, and all foreign policy decisions should be transcribed and made public. It’s never happened that way, and I doubt it will happen that way any time soon. It sure would be interesting.
Tying our interests to those of a corrupt feudal monarchy is simply repeating this pattern.
Yes, it’s too bad that we built a modern economy on the basis of fossil fuel energy, much of which came from the Middle East. We are, thankfully, breaking away from Middle East oil dependence, but a lot of other people haven’t done so yet. Are you suggesting, bobbyp, that we now let them have at it, and restrict our foreign relations to Europe, and whatever Asian countries we flattened and rebuilt during the 20th century?
What I think I’m saying pretty explicitly here is that our support for the Saudis in their war with the Houthis appears to be involving us in things that aren’t in our best interest.
That might be true, unless there’s something we don’t know about why we’re involved, say, in order to gain Saudi support for something that is very emphatically in our interest (and in our interest that we have Saudi support) such as the Iran deal. Not to mention the fact that we don’t know what the deal would be without our support. Maybe we’re tipping the balance towards a more humane approach to the war, who knows. I don’t.
Maybe we should know. Maybe all diplomats should carry a microphone at all times, and all foreign policy decisions should be transcribed and made public. It’s never happened that way, and I doubt it will happen that way any time soon. It sure would be interesting.
Tying our interests to those of a corrupt feudal monarchy is simply repeating this pattern.
Yes, it’s too bad that we built a modern economy on the basis of fossil fuel energy, much of which came from the Middle East. We are, thankfully, breaking away from Middle East oil dependence, but a lot of other people haven’t done so yet. Are you suggesting, bobbyp, that we now let them have at it, and restrict our foreign relations to Europe, and whatever Asian countries we flattened and rebuilt during the 20th century?
What I think I’m saying pretty explicitly here is that our support for the Saudis in their war with the Houthis appears to be involving us in things that aren’t in our best interest.
That might be true, unless there’s something we don’t know about why we’re involved, say, in order to gain Saudi support for something that is very emphatically in our interest (and in our interest that we have Saudi support) such as the Iran deal. Not to mention the fact that we don’t know what the deal would be without our support. Maybe we’re tipping the balance towards a more humane approach to the war, who knows. I don’t.
Maybe we should know. Maybe all diplomats should carry a microphone at all times, and all foreign policy decisions should be transcribed and made public. It’s never happened that way, and I doubt it will happen that way any time soon. It sure would be interesting.
Tying our interests to those of a corrupt feudal monarchy is simply repeating this pattern.
Yes, it’s too bad that we built a modern economy on the basis of fossil fuel energy, much of which came from the Middle East. We are, thankfully, breaking away from Middle East oil dependence, but a lot of other people haven’t done so yet. Are you suggesting, bobbyp, that we now let them have at it, and restrict our foreign relations to Europe, and whatever Asian countries we flattened and rebuilt during the 20th century?
In what way is our interest in the Middle East not constantly being reconsidered?
The most obvious way is that it is not ever being “considered”. That is, we don’t seem to ever step back and ask ourselves “What, exactly, are our long-term interests here? And what should we do to advance those?”
Instead, we go thru a constant process of reacting to events, almost always on an extremely short-term basis. (Not that our reaction might not lead to a long term position. Cf the Iraq War.)
There are, of course, some fairly stable policy threads. But it isn’t clear that those were entered into on a considered basis either. Not that we ever think, except superficially (i.e. at the sound-bite level), about whether those are a good idea either.
In what way is our interest in the Middle East not constantly being reconsidered?
The most obvious way is that it is not ever being “considered”. That is, we don’t seem to ever step back and ask ourselves “What, exactly, are our long-term interests here? And what should we do to advance those?”
Instead, we go thru a constant process of reacting to events, almost always on an extremely short-term basis. (Not that our reaction might not lead to a long term position. Cf the Iraq War.)
There are, of course, some fairly stable policy threads. But it isn’t clear that those were entered into on a considered basis either. Not that we ever think, except superficially (i.e. at the sound-bite level), about whether those are a good idea either.
In what way is our interest in the Middle East not constantly being reconsidered?
The most obvious way is that it is not ever being “considered”. That is, we don’t seem to ever step back and ask ourselves “What, exactly, are our long-term interests here? And what should we do to advance those?”
Instead, we go thru a constant process of reacting to events, almost always on an extremely short-term basis. (Not that our reaction might not lead to a long term position. Cf the Iraq War.)
There are, of course, some fairly stable policy threads. But it isn’t clear that those were entered into on a considered basis either. Not that we ever think, except superficially (i.e. at the sound-bite level), about whether those are a good idea either.
Maybe all diplomats should carry a microphone at all times, and all foreign policy decisions should be transcribed and made public.
It’s pretty clear what the result of implementing this would be. Everybody else stops talking to us about anything of substance. All we get is platitudes and/or posturing.
Now you could argue that this would be a good thing. But if you think so, wouldn’t it be far cheaper to just close all our embassies and bring all the diplomats home? We’d get just as much communication. And just as much cooperation.
Maybe all diplomats should carry a microphone at all times, and all foreign policy decisions should be transcribed and made public.
It’s pretty clear what the result of implementing this would be. Everybody else stops talking to us about anything of substance. All we get is platitudes and/or posturing.
Now you could argue that this would be a good thing. But if you think so, wouldn’t it be far cheaper to just close all our embassies and bring all the diplomats home? We’d get just as much communication. And just as much cooperation.
Maybe all diplomats should carry a microphone at all times, and all foreign policy decisions should be transcribed and made public.
It’s pretty clear what the result of implementing this would be. Everybody else stops talking to us about anything of substance. All we get is platitudes and/or posturing.
Now you could argue that this would be a good thing. But if you think so, wouldn’t it be far cheaper to just close all our embassies and bring all the diplomats home? We’d get just as much communication. And just as much cooperation.
we don’t seem to ever step back and ask ourselves “What, exactly, are our long-term interests here? And what should we do to advance those?”
I’m pretty sure there are people doing that. It’s not necessarily easy to implement policies that advance long-term interests in a world that’s changing constantly, and in a country that elects new people every [at least] eight years.
It’s pretty clear what the result of implementing this would be. Everybody else stops talking to us about anything of substance. All we get is platitudes and/or posturing.
Yes, I agree. I was being somewhat sarcastic in my suggestion. I was appalled at state department material being disclosed by wikileaks, for example. The fact is, however, that some of our “interests” aren’t readily apparent in the short term to people who aren’t negotiating foreign policy.
we don’t seem to ever step back and ask ourselves “What, exactly, are our long-term interests here? And what should we do to advance those?”
I’m pretty sure there are people doing that. It’s not necessarily easy to implement policies that advance long-term interests in a world that’s changing constantly, and in a country that elects new people every [at least] eight years.
It’s pretty clear what the result of implementing this would be. Everybody else stops talking to us about anything of substance. All we get is platitudes and/or posturing.
Yes, I agree. I was being somewhat sarcastic in my suggestion. I was appalled at state department material being disclosed by wikileaks, for example. The fact is, however, that some of our “interests” aren’t readily apparent in the short term to people who aren’t negotiating foreign policy.
we don’t seem to ever step back and ask ourselves “What, exactly, are our long-term interests here? And what should we do to advance those?”
I’m pretty sure there are people doing that. It’s not necessarily easy to implement policies that advance long-term interests in a world that’s changing constantly, and in a country that elects new people every [at least] eight years.
It’s pretty clear what the result of implementing this would be. Everybody else stops talking to us about anything of substance. All we get is platitudes and/or posturing.
Yes, I agree. I was being somewhat sarcastic in my suggestion. I was appalled at state department material being disclosed by wikileaks, for example. The fact is, however, that some of our “interests” aren’t readily apparent in the short term to people who aren’t negotiating foreign policy.
Although I know that you believe that you and Donald Johnson represent the truly humane among us, and everyone else is a sociopath, it’s possible that people are choosing certain policies because other policies would yield more atrocities.
Or maybe you actually are the last people with a conscience. In which case, maybe you should run for office, or otherwise get your hands on actual policymaking.
All of which boils down to “STFU.” If this is what you think of the people who comment here, why do you even bother, sapient?
Although I know that you believe that you and Donald Johnson represent the truly humane among us, and everyone else is a sociopath, it’s possible that people are choosing certain policies because other policies would yield more atrocities.
Or maybe you actually are the last people with a conscience. In which case, maybe you should run for office, or otherwise get your hands on actual policymaking.
All of which boils down to “STFU.” If this is what you think of the people who comment here, why do you even bother, sapient?
Although I know that you believe that you and Donald Johnson represent the truly humane among us, and everyone else is a sociopath, it’s possible that people are choosing certain policies because other policies would yield more atrocities.
Or maybe you actually are the last people with a conscience. In which case, maybe you should run for office, or otherwise get your hands on actual policymaking.
All of which boils down to “STFU.” If this is what you think of the people who comment here, why do you even bother, sapient?
All of which boils down to “STFU.” If this is what you think of the people who comment here, why do you even bother, sapient?
I was objecting to the relentless tone of “our sense of morality is way more refined than yours”. It is that tone that I would appreciate be modified.
All of which boils down to “STFU.” If this is what you think of the people who comment here, why do you even bother, sapient?
I was objecting to the relentless tone of “our sense of morality is way more refined than yours”. It is that tone that I would appreciate be modified.
All of which boils down to “STFU.” If this is what you think of the people who comment here, why do you even bother, sapient?
I was objecting to the relentless tone of “our sense of morality is way more refined than yours”. It is that tone that I would appreciate be modified.
But part of your argument seems to be that the situation is very complicated and no one here knows enough to second-guess the experts in charge of our foreign policy. That sounds like an argument that could be made against anyone criticizing any aspect of our foreign policy at any point in time.
The question I have is, when can someone who is not at least arguably a foreign policy expert rightfully criticize our foreign policy? Was it okay, for instance, in 2003 to criticize the decision to start the second Iraq war? Is it even okay to criticize it now? Who knows what would have happened if we hadn’t gone in? Maybe things would have been even worse than they are now.
But part of your argument seems to be that the situation is very complicated and no one here knows enough to second-guess the experts in charge of our foreign policy. That sounds like an argument that could be made against anyone criticizing any aspect of our foreign policy at any point in time.
The question I have is, when can someone who is not at least arguably a foreign policy expert rightfully criticize our foreign policy? Was it okay, for instance, in 2003 to criticize the decision to start the second Iraq war? Is it even okay to criticize it now? Who knows what would have happened if we hadn’t gone in? Maybe things would have been even worse than they are now.
But part of your argument seems to be that the situation is very complicated and no one here knows enough to second-guess the experts in charge of our foreign policy. That sounds like an argument that could be made against anyone criticizing any aspect of our foreign policy at any point in time.
The question I have is, when can someone who is not at least arguably a foreign policy expert rightfully criticize our foreign policy? Was it okay, for instance, in 2003 to criticize the decision to start the second Iraq war? Is it even okay to criticize it now? Who knows what would have happened if we hadn’t gone in? Maybe things would have been even worse than they are now.
That might be true, unless there’s something we don’t know about why we’re involved
Yes, it’s always possible that there are issues and agendas that are only known by privileged individuals that make our support of the Saudis the best possible option.
It’s equally possible that the Saudis are exploiting personal and financial relationships to corrupt American policy making.
None of us are in a position to know whether either, or even both, of the above are true. So it seems kind of hors d’argument, as it were.
Basically, it seems like you’re calling on the rest of us to trust the decision makers in spite of what appears, to at least some of us, to be not-so-great choices.
That doesn’t seem, to me, like how things are supposed to work in a self-governing polity. YMMV.
Based on what we actually do know, providing the Saudis with weapons, intelligence, and other forms of support, which they then use to bomb hospitals and schools, seems like a bad idea. To me, anyway.
What we could ‘do about it’ would be, minimally, to tell them to knock it off or no more support. Then, if they don’t knock it off, no more support.
Another idea that might be worth considering would be to see if there is a path to resolving the internal conflicts between the Houthis and the Yemeni government without picking a side, and without bombing anybody. American leadership can take forms other than blowing things up, I would hope.
Maybe the Houthis have a completely legitimate complaint with the Yemeni government. Why do we want to be on the wrong side of that? What’s in it for us to be on the side of oppressive dictatorships?
Why the hell are Houthis our enemy in the first place? Because they make the House of Saud nervous? Maybe our response should be to tell the House of Saud to clean up their own act if they are afraid that political unrest in Yemen might spark similar actions in Saudi Arabia.
Maybe Iran would find less of a lever among the Houthis if their complaints were addressed with respect, rather than bombs.
I really don’t think it serves us well, especially in the long run, to be on the side of bad actors. If circumstances bring us to that point, that should be a signal to us that we’ve made some bad choices.
None of this is moralistic, holier-than-thou pearl-clutching. It seems, to me, to be the most basic, pragmatic reasoning that can be applied.
Why do we participate in any way with bombing Houthis in the first place? Their beef appears to be with the government of Yemen. I’m not seeing them as natural enemies of ours.
All my opinion, of course. It just seems like we always end up blowing up people places and things that don’t necessarily need blowing up. That can’t be good, either for us, or simply on its own terms.
That might be true, unless there’s something we don’t know about why we’re involved
Yes, it’s always possible that there are issues and agendas that are only known by privileged individuals that make our support of the Saudis the best possible option.
It’s equally possible that the Saudis are exploiting personal and financial relationships to corrupt American policy making.
None of us are in a position to know whether either, or even both, of the above are true. So it seems kind of hors d’argument, as it were.
Basically, it seems like you’re calling on the rest of us to trust the decision makers in spite of what appears, to at least some of us, to be not-so-great choices.
That doesn’t seem, to me, like how things are supposed to work in a self-governing polity. YMMV.
Based on what we actually do know, providing the Saudis with weapons, intelligence, and other forms of support, which they then use to bomb hospitals and schools, seems like a bad idea. To me, anyway.
What we could ‘do about it’ would be, minimally, to tell them to knock it off or no more support. Then, if they don’t knock it off, no more support.
Another idea that might be worth considering would be to see if there is a path to resolving the internal conflicts between the Houthis and the Yemeni government without picking a side, and without bombing anybody. American leadership can take forms other than blowing things up, I would hope.
Maybe the Houthis have a completely legitimate complaint with the Yemeni government. Why do we want to be on the wrong side of that? What’s in it for us to be on the side of oppressive dictatorships?
Why the hell are Houthis our enemy in the first place? Because they make the House of Saud nervous? Maybe our response should be to tell the House of Saud to clean up their own act if they are afraid that political unrest in Yemen might spark similar actions in Saudi Arabia.
Maybe Iran would find less of a lever among the Houthis if their complaints were addressed with respect, rather than bombs.
I really don’t think it serves us well, especially in the long run, to be on the side of bad actors. If circumstances bring us to that point, that should be a signal to us that we’ve made some bad choices.
None of this is moralistic, holier-than-thou pearl-clutching. It seems, to me, to be the most basic, pragmatic reasoning that can be applied.
Why do we participate in any way with bombing Houthis in the first place? Their beef appears to be with the government of Yemen. I’m not seeing them as natural enemies of ours.
All my opinion, of course. It just seems like we always end up blowing up people places and things that don’t necessarily need blowing up. That can’t be good, either for us, or simply on its own terms.
That might be true, unless there’s something we don’t know about why we’re involved
Yes, it’s always possible that there are issues and agendas that are only known by privileged individuals that make our support of the Saudis the best possible option.
It’s equally possible that the Saudis are exploiting personal and financial relationships to corrupt American policy making.
None of us are in a position to know whether either, or even both, of the above are true. So it seems kind of hors d’argument, as it were.
Basically, it seems like you’re calling on the rest of us to trust the decision makers in spite of what appears, to at least some of us, to be not-so-great choices.
That doesn’t seem, to me, like how things are supposed to work in a self-governing polity. YMMV.
Based on what we actually do know, providing the Saudis with weapons, intelligence, and other forms of support, which they then use to bomb hospitals and schools, seems like a bad idea. To me, anyway.
What we could ‘do about it’ would be, minimally, to tell them to knock it off or no more support. Then, if they don’t knock it off, no more support.
Another idea that might be worth considering would be to see if there is a path to resolving the internal conflicts between the Houthis and the Yemeni government without picking a side, and without bombing anybody. American leadership can take forms other than blowing things up, I would hope.
Maybe the Houthis have a completely legitimate complaint with the Yemeni government. Why do we want to be on the wrong side of that? What’s in it for us to be on the side of oppressive dictatorships?
Why the hell are Houthis our enemy in the first place? Because they make the House of Saud nervous? Maybe our response should be to tell the House of Saud to clean up their own act if they are afraid that political unrest in Yemen might spark similar actions in Saudi Arabia.
Maybe Iran would find less of a lever among the Houthis if their complaints were addressed with respect, rather than bombs.
I really don’t think it serves us well, especially in the long run, to be on the side of bad actors. If circumstances bring us to that point, that should be a signal to us that we’ve made some bad choices.
None of this is moralistic, holier-than-thou pearl-clutching. It seems, to me, to be the most basic, pragmatic reasoning that can be applied.
Why do we participate in any way with bombing Houthis in the first place? Their beef appears to be with the government of Yemen. I’m not seeing them as natural enemies of ours.
All my opinion, of course. It just seems like we always end up blowing up people places and things that don’t necessarily need blowing up. That can’t be good, either for us, or simply on its own terms.
But part of your argument seems to be that the situation is very complicated and no one here knows enough to second-guess the experts in charge of our foreign policy. That sounds like an argument that could be made against anyone criticizing any aspect of our foreign policy at any point in time.
Actually not. My objection is that no one seems to know anything about our assistance to the Saudis, or much about the underlying conflict other than a couple of googled articles that they found after they’d already decided that we were engaging in a very screwed up policy, helping the Saudis commit atrocities. Maybe some inquiries into why we’re actually helping the Saudis in this effort, and what the situation might look like without our participation would be more constructive than assuming that our immoral government is at it again.
The question I have is, when can someone who is not at least arguably a foreign policy expert rightfully criticize our foreign policy?
Whenever they want. I would merely suggest that people consider the possibility that there’s more to a situation than one article might suggest. They might even imagine that part of our policy in “assisting” another country involves encouraging more careful targeting of military targets rather than rampant destruction that might have occurred otherwise. I mean, is it even possible that people making policy care about children as much as the people who comment on Obsidian Wings?
Sure, if there are better ways to participate or refrain from participation in the situation with the Saudis in Yemen, those should be discussed. There aren’t usually a lot of suggestions for creative policies being put forth here. “Let’s rethink our relationship with the Saudis!” Okay, you’ve done your rethinking, so what is your plan? When we quit giving aid (and influence to) the Saudis, maybe China will give them aid and exercise influence. Or maybe Russia. Much better for human rights.
But part of your argument seems to be that the situation is very complicated and no one here knows enough to second-guess the experts in charge of our foreign policy. That sounds like an argument that could be made against anyone criticizing any aspect of our foreign policy at any point in time.
Actually not. My objection is that no one seems to know anything about our assistance to the Saudis, or much about the underlying conflict other than a couple of googled articles that they found after they’d already decided that we were engaging in a very screwed up policy, helping the Saudis commit atrocities. Maybe some inquiries into why we’re actually helping the Saudis in this effort, and what the situation might look like without our participation would be more constructive than assuming that our immoral government is at it again.
The question I have is, when can someone who is not at least arguably a foreign policy expert rightfully criticize our foreign policy?
Whenever they want. I would merely suggest that people consider the possibility that there’s more to a situation than one article might suggest. They might even imagine that part of our policy in “assisting” another country involves encouraging more careful targeting of military targets rather than rampant destruction that might have occurred otherwise. I mean, is it even possible that people making policy care about children as much as the people who comment on Obsidian Wings?
Sure, if there are better ways to participate or refrain from participation in the situation with the Saudis in Yemen, those should be discussed. There aren’t usually a lot of suggestions for creative policies being put forth here. “Let’s rethink our relationship with the Saudis!” Okay, you’ve done your rethinking, so what is your plan? When we quit giving aid (and influence to) the Saudis, maybe China will give them aid and exercise influence. Or maybe Russia. Much better for human rights.
But part of your argument seems to be that the situation is very complicated and no one here knows enough to second-guess the experts in charge of our foreign policy. That sounds like an argument that could be made against anyone criticizing any aspect of our foreign policy at any point in time.
Actually not. My objection is that no one seems to know anything about our assistance to the Saudis, or much about the underlying conflict other than a couple of googled articles that they found after they’d already decided that we were engaging in a very screwed up policy, helping the Saudis commit atrocities. Maybe some inquiries into why we’re actually helping the Saudis in this effort, and what the situation might look like without our participation would be more constructive than assuming that our immoral government is at it again.
The question I have is, when can someone who is not at least arguably a foreign policy expert rightfully criticize our foreign policy?
Whenever they want. I would merely suggest that people consider the possibility that there’s more to a situation than one article might suggest. They might even imagine that part of our policy in “assisting” another country involves encouraging more careful targeting of military targets rather than rampant destruction that might have occurred otherwise. I mean, is it even possible that people making policy care about children as much as the people who comment on Obsidian Wings?
Sure, if there are better ways to participate or refrain from participation in the situation with the Saudis in Yemen, those should be discussed. There aren’t usually a lot of suggestions for creative policies being put forth here. “Let’s rethink our relationship with the Saudis!” Okay, you’ve done your rethinking, so what is your plan? When we quit giving aid (and influence to) the Saudis, maybe China will give them aid and exercise influence. Or maybe Russia. Much better for human rights.
None of this is moralistic, holier-than-thou pearl-clutching. It seems, to me, to be the most basic, pragmatic reasoning that can be applied.
Admittedly, the conflation of morality and foreign policy is both understandable and common (by all sides). So the whining by one party here about the presumed ‘holier than thou’ morality claims of others is striking coming from somebody who repeatedly invokes the immorality of “the enemy”, but when confronted with our own immoralities, retreats to claims of “realpolitik”, or worse, blandishments of “you don’t know nuttin’ so shaddup already.”
And while I would generally agree that foreign policy as expressed and implemented by Republicans is generally much worse than that expressed and implemented by Democrats (Spanish-American War going forward), I cannot fail to note that the national security institutions built and supported by both political parties since WWII pose a threat to our long term interests and our democracy….in my humble opinion, which, I am told, I have every right to have, however wrong it may be.
Thanks for the pat on the head.
None of this is moralistic, holier-than-thou pearl-clutching. It seems, to me, to be the most basic, pragmatic reasoning that can be applied.
Admittedly, the conflation of morality and foreign policy is both understandable and common (by all sides). So the whining by one party here about the presumed ‘holier than thou’ morality claims of others is striking coming from somebody who repeatedly invokes the immorality of “the enemy”, but when confronted with our own immoralities, retreats to claims of “realpolitik”, or worse, blandishments of “you don’t know nuttin’ so shaddup already.”
And while I would generally agree that foreign policy as expressed and implemented by Republicans is generally much worse than that expressed and implemented by Democrats (Spanish-American War going forward), I cannot fail to note that the national security institutions built and supported by both political parties since WWII pose a threat to our long term interests and our democracy….in my humble opinion, which, I am told, I have every right to have, however wrong it may be.
Thanks for the pat on the head.
None of this is moralistic, holier-than-thou pearl-clutching. It seems, to me, to be the most basic, pragmatic reasoning that can be applied.
Admittedly, the conflation of morality and foreign policy is both understandable and common (by all sides). So the whining by one party here about the presumed ‘holier than thou’ morality claims of others is striking coming from somebody who repeatedly invokes the immorality of “the enemy”, but when confronted with our own immoralities, retreats to claims of “realpolitik”, or worse, blandishments of “you don’t know nuttin’ so shaddup already.”
And while I would generally agree that foreign policy as expressed and implemented by Republicans is generally much worse than that expressed and implemented by Democrats (Spanish-American War going forward), I cannot fail to note that the national security institutions built and supported by both political parties since WWII pose a threat to our long term interests and our democracy….in my humble opinion, which, I am told, I have every right to have, however wrong it may be.
Thanks for the pat on the head.
I would merely suggest that people consider the possibility that there’s more to a situation than one article might suggest.
Maybe you shouldn’t assume that one article is the entire basis for someone’s opinion simply because they linked to one article they found to be particularly illustrative of the point they were trying to make based on a much larger basis of knowledge.
If you think people on Obsidian Wings are particularly ignorant, God bless the rest of America, I guess.
I would merely suggest that people consider the possibility that there’s more to a situation than one article might suggest.
Maybe you shouldn’t assume that one article is the entire basis for someone’s opinion simply because they linked to one article they found to be particularly illustrative of the point they were trying to make based on a much larger basis of knowledge.
If you think people on Obsidian Wings are particularly ignorant, God bless the rest of America, I guess.
I would merely suggest that people consider the possibility that there’s more to a situation than one article might suggest.
Maybe you shouldn’t assume that one article is the entire basis for someone’s opinion simply because they linked to one article they found to be particularly illustrative of the point they were trying to make based on a much larger basis of knowledge.
If you think people on Obsidian Wings are particularly ignorant, God bless the rest of America, I guess.
My objection is that no one seems to know anything about our assistance to the Saudis
I would say, from the discussion here over the years, that there are folks here who know enough about our assistance to the Saudis to have an opinion about it that is worth hearing.
It strikes me that your argument is really the one based on what is not, and cannot, be known.
There is always ‘more to the situation’ than what folks in the general population know. Some of that may reflect well on folks making policy, and some may not. Nobody here, at least that I’m aware of, is in a position to know.
We can all ‘imagine’ lots of things. In terms of furthering our understanding of our situation in the world, most of what we can ‘imagine’ isn’t really relevant. Because it’s imaginary.
Donald J raised the issue that the Saudis, with our support, are bombing hospitals and schools.
Do you think that is not so? What is your basis for thinking it’s not so?
Do you think that is so, but that the Saudis actions are occurring in spite of our objections? What’s your basis for thinking that?
Do you think that is so, and is occurring without any objection from us, but that that is the best position for us to take, given the circumstances? Again, if that’s your position, can you provide any basis for it?
Basically, your argument here has been that folks who disagree with you don’t have the whole picture, and if they did our involvement with things that may well be war crimes would be justifiable.
As far as I can tell, you have no more of the picture than any of us do. If in fact you do have more of the picture than the rest of us, and are in a position to share what you know, perhaps it would be a good idea for you to do so.
If not, then perhaps it behooves you to stand down from criticizing folks for making what seem, to me, to be quite reasonable objections to things that seem, to them, to be wrong.
‘Trust the pros’ is not a really strong argument.
My objection is that no one seems to know anything about our assistance to the Saudis
I would say, from the discussion here over the years, that there are folks here who know enough about our assistance to the Saudis to have an opinion about it that is worth hearing.
It strikes me that your argument is really the one based on what is not, and cannot, be known.
There is always ‘more to the situation’ than what folks in the general population know. Some of that may reflect well on folks making policy, and some may not. Nobody here, at least that I’m aware of, is in a position to know.
We can all ‘imagine’ lots of things. In terms of furthering our understanding of our situation in the world, most of what we can ‘imagine’ isn’t really relevant. Because it’s imaginary.
Donald J raised the issue that the Saudis, with our support, are bombing hospitals and schools.
Do you think that is not so? What is your basis for thinking it’s not so?
Do you think that is so, but that the Saudis actions are occurring in spite of our objections? What’s your basis for thinking that?
Do you think that is so, and is occurring without any objection from us, but that that is the best position for us to take, given the circumstances? Again, if that’s your position, can you provide any basis for it?
Basically, your argument here has been that folks who disagree with you don’t have the whole picture, and if they did our involvement with things that may well be war crimes would be justifiable.
As far as I can tell, you have no more of the picture than any of us do. If in fact you do have more of the picture than the rest of us, and are in a position to share what you know, perhaps it would be a good idea for you to do so.
If not, then perhaps it behooves you to stand down from criticizing folks for making what seem, to me, to be quite reasonable objections to things that seem, to them, to be wrong.
‘Trust the pros’ is not a really strong argument.
My objection is that no one seems to know anything about our assistance to the Saudis
I would say, from the discussion here over the years, that there are folks here who know enough about our assistance to the Saudis to have an opinion about it that is worth hearing.
It strikes me that your argument is really the one based on what is not, and cannot, be known.
There is always ‘more to the situation’ than what folks in the general population know. Some of that may reflect well on folks making policy, and some may not. Nobody here, at least that I’m aware of, is in a position to know.
We can all ‘imagine’ lots of things. In terms of furthering our understanding of our situation in the world, most of what we can ‘imagine’ isn’t really relevant. Because it’s imaginary.
Donald J raised the issue that the Saudis, with our support, are bombing hospitals and schools.
Do you think that is not so? What is your basis for thinking it’s not so?
Do you think that is so, but that the Saudis actions are occurring in spite of our objections? What’s your basis for thinking that?
Do you think that is so, and is occurring without any objection from us, but that that is the best position for us to take, given the circumstances? Again, if that’s your position, can you provide any basis for it?
Basically, your argument here has been that folks who disagree with you don’t have the whole picture, and if they did our involvement with things that may well be war crimes would be justifiable.
As far as I can tell, you have no more of the picture than any of us do. If in fact you do have more of the picture than the rest of us, and are in a position to share what you know, perhaps it would be a good idea for you to do so.
If not, then perhaps it behooves you to stand down from criticizing folks for making what seem, to me, to be quite reasonable objections to things that seem, to them, to be wrong.
‘Trust the pros’ is not a really strong argument.
My objection is that no one seems to know anything about our assistance to the Saudis
I would say, from the discussion here over the years, that there are folks here who know enough about our assistance to the Saudis to have an opinion about it that is worth hearing.
It strikes me that your argument is really the one based on what is not, and cannot, be known.
There is always ‘more to the situation’ than what folks in the general population know. Some of that may reflect well on folks making policy, and some may not. Nobody here, at least that I’m aware of, is in a position to know.
We can all ‘imagine’ lots of things. In terms of furthering our understanding of our situation in the world, most of what we can ‘imagine’ isn’t really relevant. Because it’s imaginary.
Donald J raised the issue that the Saudis, with our support, are bombing hospitals and schools.
Do you think that is not so? What is your basis for thinking it’s not so?
Do you think that is so, but that the Saudis actions are occurring in spite of our objections? What’s your basis for thinking that?
Do you think that is so, and is occurring without any objection from us, but that that is the best position for us to take, given the circumstances? Again, if that’s your position, can you provide any basis for it?
Basically, your argument here has been that folks who disagree with you don’t have the whole picture, and if they did our involvement with things that may well be war crimes would be justifiable.
As far as I can tell, you have no more of the picture than any of us do. If in fact you do have more of the picture than the rest of us, and are in a position to share what you know, perhaps it would be a good idea for you to do so.
If not, then perhaps it behooves you to stand down from criticizing folks for making what seem, to me, to be quite reasonable objections to things that seem, to them, to be wrong.
‘Trust the pros’ is not a really strong argument.
My objection is that no one seems to know anything about our assistance to the Saudis
I would say, from the discussion here over the years, that there are folks here who know enough about our assistance to the Saudis to have an opinion about it that is worth hearing.
It strikes me that your argument is really the one based on what is not, and cannot, be known.
There is always ‘more to the situation’ than what folks in the general population know. Some of that may reflect well on folks making policy, and some may not. Nobody here, at least that I’m aware of, is in a position to know.
We can all ‘imagine’ lots of things. In terms of furthering our understanding of our situation in the world, most of what we can ‘imagine’ isn’t really relevant. Because it’s imaginary.
Donald J raised the issue that the Saudis, with our support, are bombing hospitals and schools.
Do you think that is not so? What is your basis for thinking it’s not so?
Do you think that is so, but that the Saudis actions are occurring in spite of our objections? What’s your basis for thinking that?
Do you think that is so, and is occurring without any objection from us, but that that is the best position for us to take, given the circumstances? Again, if that’s your position, can you provide any basis for it?
Basically, your argument here has been that folks who disagree with you don’t have the whole picture, and if they did our involvement with things that may well be war crimes would be justifiable.
As far as I can tell, you have no more of the picture than any of us do. If in fact you do have more of the picture than the rest of us, and are in a position to share what you know, perhaps it would be a good idea for you to do so.
If not, then perhaps it behooves you to stand down from criticizing folks for making what seem, to me, to be quite reasonable objections to things that seem, to them, to be wrong.
‘Trust the pros’ is not a really strong argument.
My objection is that no one seems to know anything about our assistance to the Saudis
I would say, from the discussion here over the years, that there are folks here who know enough about our assistance to the Saudis to have an opinion about it that is worth hearing.
It strikes me that your argument is really the one based on what is not, and cannot, be known.
There is always ‘more to the situation’ than what folks in the general population know. Some of that may reflect well on folks making policy, and some may not. Nobody here, at least that I’m aware of, is in a position to know.
We can all ‘imagine’ lots of things. In terms of furthering our understanding of our situation in the world, most of what we can ‘imagine’ isn’t really relevant. Because it’s imaginary.
Donald J raised the issue that the Saudis, with our support, are bombing hospitals and schools.
Do you think that is not so? What is your basis for thinking it’s not so?
Do you think that is so, but that the Saudis actions are occurring in spite of our objections? What’s your basis for thinking that?
Do you think that is so, and is occurring without any objection from us, but that that is the best position for us to take, given the circumstances? Again, if that’s your position, can you provide any basis for it?
Basically, your argument here has been that folks who disagree with you don’t have the whole picture, and if they did our involvement with things that may well be war crimes would be justifiable.
As far as I can tell, you have no more of the picture than any of us do. If in fact you do have more of the picture than the rest of us, and are in a position to share what you know, perhaps it would be a good idea for you to do so.
If not, then perhaps it behooves you to stand down from criticizing folks for making what seem, to me, to be quite reasonable objections to things that seem, to them, to be wrong.
‘Trust the pros’ is not a really strong argument.
The United States likely has provided minimal assistance in exchange for Saudi support for the Iran deal (or something similar).
Emphasis added.
You keep claiming this. It’s pretty ridiculous on the surface, but you keep claiming this. Here, lemme help you out with finding the most important part of my large block-quote above:
So there’s two possibilities that the above invokes. Either we’re providing aerial refueling that allows the Saudis to hit targets they otherwise would not be capable of hitting, in which case we’re straight-up responsible for some percentage of their air strikes, or said refueling allows the Saudi aircraft to carry more ordinance in lieu of supplementary fuel tanks, in which case we’re responsible for the intensity of some percentage of their air strikes. It’s not so deeply complicated as your faith-based approach to foreign policy wants it to be.
Actually not. My objection is that no one seems to know anything about our assistance to the Saudis, or much about the underlying conflict other than a couple of googled articles that they found after they’d already decided that we were engaging in a very screwed up policy, helping the Saudis commit atrocities.
If we take for granted that you’ve accurately described all the background we the fiendish faithless have (which we shouldn’t, but for argument, let’s)… this differs from your stance how, exactly? Half of your argument appears to be an explicit appeal to ignorance (“We don’t know that they don’t have Very Good Reasons, and/or we don’t know that our brave advisers in Riyadh aren’t the only bulwark between the Houthis and a Saudi-inflicted genocide!”), and the other is an intertwined appeal to authority (“Noble Leader knows more about policy than any of you could ever hope to, and Noble Leader is the best of all possible Noble Leaders, and therefore you only underscore your ignorance and moral bankruptcy by questioning Noble Leader!”).
Okay, you’ve done your rethinking, so what is your plan? When we quit giving aid (and influence to) the Saudis, maybe China will give them aid and exercise influence. Or maybe Russia. Much better for human rights.
This has the strange, unproven implicit assumption that our giving them support, aid, and diplomatic cover is moderating them. Do you have any evidence of that? Of course not; faith-based foreign policy needs no evidence! Faith-based foreign policy is built on the solid, reliable foundation of Virtue Ethics, unlike those shifty Consequentialists or hidebound Deontologists. “Evidence” only distracts you from the self-evident goodness of the character of the actors in question!
Looking at decades upon decades of American foreign policy, under Most Noble Democrats and Most Sinister Republicans shows an awful lot of consistency, and it’s not consistency in moderating client-states. It’s in enabling them, empowering them, and giving them diplomatic cover. But no, you’re right, this time simply must be different; THIS time hope WILL triumph over experience…
(More succinctly, you’re asking us to have faith in the good intentions and motives of actors who have time and again shown neither, and chiding us for basing our judgement on the history and character of the actors, rather than unknowable privileged non-public information that might mitigate not only their actions taken out of context, but also their actions in the context of their history as bad actors. Again, as with your approach to national security and pretty much everything else involving the executive, you are calling for blind faith before and during the fact… presumably to be coupled, as usual, with unlimited compassion, forgiveness, and forward-thinkingness after the fact…)
The United States likely has provided minimal assistance in exchange for Saudi support for the Iran deal (or something similar).
Emphasis added.
You keep claiming this. It’s pretty ridiculous on the surface, but you keep claiming this. Here, lemme help you out with finding the most important part of my large block-quote above:
So there’s two possibilities that the above invokes. Either we’re providing aerial refueling that allows the Saudis to hit targets they otherwise would not be capable of hitting, in which case we’re straight-up responsible for some percentage of their air strikes, or said refueling allows the Saudi aircraft to carry more ordinance in lieu of supplementary fuel tanks, in which case we’re responsible for the intensity of some percentage of their air strikes. It’s not so deeply complicated as your faith-based approach to foreign policy wants it to be.
Actually not. My objection is that no one seems to know anything about our assistance to the Saudis, or much about the underlying conflict other than a couple of googled articles that they found after they’d already decided that we were engaging in a very screwed up policy, helping the Saudis commit atrocities.
If we take for granted that you’ve accurately described all the background we the fiendish faithless have (which we shouldn’t, but for argument, let’s)… this differs from your stance how, exactly? Half of your argument appears to be an explicit appeal to ignorance (“We don’t know that they don’t have Very Good Reasons, and/or we don’t know that our brave advisers in Riyadh aren’t the only bulwark between the Houthis and a Saudi-inflicted genocide!”), and the other is an intertwined appeal to authority (“Noble Leader knows more about policy than any of you could ever hope to, and Noble Leader is the best of all possible Noble Leaders, and therefore you only underscore your ignorance and moral bankruptcy by questioning Noble Leader!”).
Okay, you’ve done your rethinking, so what is your plan? When we quit giving aid (and influence to) the Saudis, maybe China will give them aid and exercise influence. Or maybe Russia. Much better for human rights.
This has the strange, unproven implicit assumption that our giving them support, aid, and diplomatic cover is moderating them. Do you have any evidence of that? Of course not; faith-based foreign policy needs no evidence! Faith-based foreign policy is built on the solid, reliable foundation of Virtue Ethics, unlike those shifty Consequentialists or hidebound Deontologists. “Evidence” only distracts you from the self-evident goodness of the character of the actors in question!
Looking at decades upon decades of American foreign policy, under Most Noble Democrats and Most Sinister Republicans shows an awful lot of consistency, and it’s not consistency in moderating client-states. It’s in enabling them, empowering them, and giving them diplomatic cover. But no, you’re right, this time simply must be different; THIS time hope WILL triumph over experience…
(More succinctly, you’re asking us to have faith in the good intentions and motives of actors who have time and again shown neither, and chiding us for basing our judgement on the history and character of the actors, rather than unknowable privileged non-public information that might mitigate not only their actions taken out of context, but also their actions in the context of their history as bad actors. Again, as with your approach to national security and pretty much everything else involving the executive, you are calling for blind faith before and during the fact… presumably to be coupled, as usual, with unlimited compassion, forgiveness, and forward-thinkingness after the fact…)
The United States likely has provided minimal assistance in exchange for Saudi support for the Iran deal (or something similar).
Emphasis added.
You keep claiming this. It’s pretty ridiculous on the surface, but you keep claiming this. Here, lemme help you out with finding the most important part of my large block-quote above:
So there’s two possibilities that the above invokes. Either we’re providing aerial refueling that allows the Saudis to hit targets they otherwise would not be capable of hitting, in which case we’re straight-up responsible for some percentage of their air strikes, or said refueling allows the Saudi aircraft to carry more ordinance in lieu of supplementary fuel tanks, in which case we’re responsible for the intensity of some percentage of their air strikes. It’s not so deeply complicated as your faith-based approach to foreign policy wants it to be.
Actually not. My objection is that no one seems to know anything about our assistance to the Saudis, or much about the underlying conflict other than a couple of googled articles that they found after they’d already decided that we were engaging in a very screwed up policy, helping the Saudis commit atrocities.
If we take for granted that you’ve accurately described all the background we the fiendish faithless have (which we shouldn’t, but for argument, let’s)… this differs from your stance how, exactly? Half of your argument appears to be an explicit appeal to ignorance (“We don’t know that they don’t have Very Good Reasons, and/or we don’t know that our brave advisers in Riyadh aren’t the only bulwark between the Houthis and a Saudi-inflicted genocide!”), and the other is an intertwined appeal to authority (“Noble Leader knows more about policy than any of you could ever hope to, and Noble Leader is the best of all possible Noble Leaders, and therefore you only underscore your ignorance and moral bankruptcy by questioning Noble Leader!”).
Okay, you’ve done your rethinking, so what is your plan? When we quit giving aid (and influence to) the Saudis, maybe China will give them aid and exercise influence. Or maybe Russia. Much better for human rights.
This has the strange, unproven implicit assumption that our giving them support, aid, and diplomatic cover is moderating them. Do you have any evidence of that? Of course not; faith-based foreign policy needs no evidence! Faith-based foreign policy is built on the solid, reliable foundation of Virtue Ethics, unlike those shifty Consequentialists or hidebound Deontologists. “Evidence” only distracts you from the self-evident goodness of the character of the actors in question!
Looking at decades upon decades of American foreign policy, under Most Noble Democrats and Most Sinister Republicans shows an awful lot of consistency, and it’s not consistency in moderating client-states. It’s in enabling them, empowering them, and giving them diplomatic cover. But no, you’re right, this time simply must be different; THIS time hope WILL triumph over experience…
(More succinctly, you’re asking us to have faith in the good intentions and motives of actors who have time and again shown neither, and chiding us for basing our judgement on the history and character of the actors, rather than unknowable privileged non-public information that might mitigate not only their actions taken out of context, but also their actions in the context of their history as bad actors. Again, as with your approach to national security and pretty much everything else involving the executive, you are calling for blind faith before and during the fact… presumably to be coupled, as usual, with unlimited compassion, forgiveness, and forward-thinkingness after the fact…)
Yeah, NV, we’re helping the Saudis. They’re our allies.
<Earlier”>https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/un-most-attacks-on-yemen-civilians-from-saudi-led-coalition/2015/12/22/64a4252c-a8ca-11e5-b596-113f59ee069a_story.html>Earlier in December: “U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power told reporters Monday evening that the U.S. has repeatedly urged Saudi Arabia to fully comply with international humanitarian law. “Those conversations have happened at really every level,” she said.
“Tuesday’s open [UN Security Council] meeting was organized by the United States, the current council president. The rare public meeting on the Yemen crisis gave the 15 council members and U.N. officials a chance to openly pressure all parties.
A notable absence was Saudi Arabia, Yemen’s powerful northern neighbor. An email to a spokesman for the mission requesting comment brought no immediate response.”
So Samantha Power recently organized an open UN Security Council meeting to publicly pressure Saudi Arabia to get its act together.
A press release about the meeting.
Nobody in government cares – just the people here commenting.
Yeah, NV, we’re helping the Saudis. They’re our allies.
<Earlier”>https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/un-most-attacks-on-yemen-civilians-from-saudi-led-coalition/2015/12/22/64a4252c-a8ca-11e5-b596-113f59ee069a_story.html>Earlier in December: “U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power told reporters Monday evening that the U.S. has repeatedly urged Saudi Arabia to fully comply with international humanitarian law. “Those conversations have happened at really every level,” she said.
“Tuesday’s open [UN Security Council] meeting was organized by the United States, the current council president. The rare public meeting on the Yemen crisis gave the 15 council members and U.N. officials a chance to openly pressure all parties.
A notable absence was Saudi Arabia, Yemen’s powerful northern neighbor. An email to a spokesman for the mission requesting comment brought no immediate response.”
So Samantha Power recently organized an open UN Security Council meeting to publicly pressure Saudi Arabia to get its act together.
A press release about the meeting.
Nobody in government cares – just the people here commenting.
Yeah, NV, we’re helping the Saudis. They’re our allies.
<Earlier”>https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/un-most-attacks-on-yemen-civilians-from-saudi-led-coalition/2015/12/22/64a4252c-a8ca-11e5-b596-113f59ee069a_story.html>Earlier in December: “U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power told reporters Monday evening that the U.S. has repeatedly urged Saudi Arabia to fully comply with international humanitarian law. “Those conversations have happened at really every level,” she said.
“Tuesday’s open [UN Security Council] meeting was organized by the United States, the current council president. The rare public meeting on the Yemen crisis gave the 15 council members and U.N. officials a chance to openly pressure all parties.
A notable absence was Saudi Arabia, Yemen’s powerful northern neighbor. An email to a spokesman for the mission requesting comment brought no immediate response.”
So Samantha Power recently organized an open UN Security Council meeting to publicly pressure Saudi Arabia to get its act together.
A press release about the meeting.
Nobody in government cares – just the people here commenting.
The first link again.
The first link again.
The first link again.
Nobody in government cares – just the people here commenting.
An argument, by the way, nobody here is making….not that it matters.
We imposed and/or organized multinational punitive sanctions on Iraq and Iran.
Actions, I am given to understand, speak louder than words.
Nobody in government cares – just the people here commenting.
An argument, by the way, nobody here is making….not that it matters.
We imposed and/or organized multinational punitive sanctions on Iraq and Iran.
Actions, I am given to understand, speak louder than words.
Nobody in government cares – just the people here commenting.
An argument, by the way, nobody here is making….not that it matters.
We imposed and/or organized multinational punitive sanctions on Iraq and Iran.
Actions, I am given to understand, speak louder than words.
So Samantha Power recently organized an open UN Security Council meeting to publicly pressure Saudi Arabia to get its act together.
Good job, Samantha Power!
Good googling, sapient!
Nobody in government cares – just the people here commenting.
Good mind-reading, sapient!
So Samantha Power recently organized an open UN Security Council meeting to publicly pressure Saudi Arabia to get its act together.
Good job, Samantha Power!
Good googling, sapient!
Nobody in government cares – just the people here commenting.
Good mind-reading, sapient!
So Samantha Power recently organized an open UN Security Council meeting to publicly pressure Saudi Arabia to get its act together.
Good job, Samantha Power!
Good googling, sapient!
Nobody in government cares – just the people here commenting.
Good mind-reading, sapient!
There are peace talks resuming in January, bobbyp. It’s possible that people are actually interested in bringing an end to the conflict.
There are peace talks resuming in January, bobbyp. It’s possible that people are actually interested in bringing an end to the conflict.
There are peace talks resuming in January, bobbyp. It’s possible that people are actually interested in bringing an end to the conflict.
That is a good thing.
That is a good thing.
That is a good thing.
Good googling, sapient!
Thanks! It’s fun to use search terms other than “United States sucks”.
Good googling, sapient!
Thanks! It’s fun to use search terms other than “United States sucks”.
Good googling, sapient!
Thanks! It’s fun to use search terms other than “United States sucks”.
United States sucks
approx. 20,400,000 hits.
Nah. Nothing there! All is good.
United States sucks
approx. 20,400,000 hits.
Nah. Nothing there! All is good.
United States sucks
approx. 20,400,000 hits.
Nah. Nothing there! All is good.
That is a good thing.
Although it behooves us to point out that we have much bigger levers of influence at our disposal. Just saying.
That is a good thing.
Although it behooves us to point out that we have much bigger levers of influence at our disposal. Just saying.
That is a good thing.
Although it behooves us to point out that we have much bigger levers of influence at our disposal. Just saying.
The straw man giveth, and the straw man taketh away.
The straw man giveth, and the straw man taketh away.
The straw man giveth, and the straw man taketh away.
“I was objecting to the relentless tone of “our sense of morality is way more refined than yours”. It is that tone that I would appreciate be modified.”
No.
My sense of morality isn’t all that refined anyway. We are helping Saudi Arabia kill civilians. I don’t think the Obama people are happy about that–in some other cases I think Democrats and Republicans have actually chosen to hurt civilians, but in this case I doubt they see a benefit to it. Or not a direct one. But they want to keep the Saudis happy, so they do it. The NYT piece I first linked was the NYT giving the Administration a chance to say that they aren’t happy about being linked to war crimes, though they are in fact linked, both with the military support and by not investigating the air strikes that kill civilians.
What my not terribly refined sense of morality wants is that Americans openly discuss our role when our government is complicit in war crimes. It ought to be front page stuff, asked at press conferences, debated in debates, common knowledge. Otherwise, it looks like this whole democracy thing is really our way of telling people in power that they can commit terrorist acts if they want, so long as we get to play innocent.
I don’t think there is a good justification for what we are doing, but whether there is or isn’t, it ought to be discussed. I was pleasantly surprised when the torture scandal was front page news in the Bush era, but I am afraid that was in part because there was a partisan angle. (Still is, unfortunately, as I guess being pro-torture is part of what makes some Republicans think you are tough on terror.)
“I was objecting to the relentless tone of “our sense of morality is way more refined than yours”. It is that tone that I would appreciate be modified.”
No.
My sense of morality isn’t all that refined anyway. We are helping Saudi Arabia kill civilians. I don’t think the Obama people are happy about that–in some other cases I think Democrats and Republicans have actually chosen to hurt civilians, but in this case I doubt they see a benefit to it. Or not a direct one. But they want to keep the Saudis happy, so they do it. The NYT piece I first linked was the NYT giving the Administration a chance to say that they aren’t happy about being linked to war crimes, though they are in fact linked, both with the military support and by not investigating the air strikes that kill civilians.
What my not terribly refined sense of morality wants is that Americans openly discuss our role when our government is complicit in war crimes. It ought to be front page stuff, asked at press conferences, debated in debates, common knowledge. Otherwise, it looks like this whole democracy thing is really our way of telling people in power that they can commit terrorist acts if they want, so long as we get to play innocent.
I don’t think there is a good justification for what we are doing, but whether there is or isn’t, it ought to be discussed. I was pleasantly surprised when the torture scandal was front page news in the Bush era, but I am afraid that was in part because there was a partisan angle. (Still is, unfortunately, as I guess being pro-torture is part of what makes some Republicans think you are tough on terror.)
“I was objecting to the relentless tone of “our sense of morality is way more refined than yours”. It is that tone that I would appreciate be modified.”
No.
My sense of morality isn’t all that refined anyway. We are helping Saudi Arabia kill civilians. I don’t think the Obama people are happy about that–in some other cases I think Democrats and Republicans have actually chosen to hurt civilians, but in this case I doubt they see a benefit to it. Or not a direct one. But they want to keep the Saudis happy, so they do it. The NYT piece I first linked was the NYT giving the Administration a chance to say that they aren’t happy about being linked to war crimes, though they are in fact linked, both with the military support and by not investigating the air strikes that kill civilians.
What my not terribly refined sense of morality wants is that Americans openly discuss our role when our government is complicit in war crimes. It ought to be front page stuff, asked at press conferences, debated in debates, common knowledge. Otherwise, it looks like this whole democracy thing is really our way of telling people in power that they can commit terrorist acts if they want, so long as we get to play innocent.
I don’t think there is a good justification for what we are doing, but whether there is or isn’t, it ought to be discussed. I was pleasantly surprised when the torture scandal was front page news in the Bush era, but I am afraid that was in part because there was a partisan angle. (Still is, unfortunately, as I guess being pro-torture is part of what makes some Republicans think you are tough on terror.)
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a40836/ebola-isis/
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a40836/ebola-isis/
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a40836/ebola-isis/
So Samantha Power recently organized an open UN Security Council meeting to publicly pressure Saudi Arabia to get its act together.
You like playing with counterfactuals, so here’s one for you: would this have been more or less likely to have happened if the media, NGOs, and yes, even members of the public, had been good little obedient, trusting children who sit down and shut up when the Serious Grownups are Doing Politics?
So Samantha Power recently organized an open UN Security Council meeting to publicly pressure Saudi Arabia to get its act together.
You like playing with counterfactuals, so here’s one for you: would this have been more or less likely to have happened if the media, NGOs, and yes, even members of the public, had been good little obedient, trusting children who sit down and shut up when the Serious Grownups are Doing Politics?
So Samantha Power recently organized an open UN Security Council meeting to publicly pressure Saudi Arabia to get its act together.
You like playing with counterfactuals, so here’s one for you: would this have been more or less likely to have happened if the media, NGOs, and yes, even members of the public, had been good little obedient, trusting children who sit down and shut up when the Serious Grownups are Doing Politics?
And as usual, DJ does a fairly good job of summing up my jaded, tired, cynical leftist perspective more succinctly than I can even though (well, okay, probably because) he doesn’t have access to my jumbled rats’-nest of thoughts…
And as usual, DJ does a fairly good job of summing up my jaded, tired, cynical leftist perspective more succinctly than I can even though (well, okay, probably because) he doesn’t have access to my jumbled rats’-nest of thoughts…
And as usual, DJ does a fairly good job of summing up my jaded, tired, cynical leftist perspective more succinctly than I can even though (well, okay, probably because) he doesn’t have access to my jumbled rats’-nest of thoughts…
When the first we hear of the fact that we’re supporting the Saudis in Yemen is a complaint that the Saudis are bombing civilians, there’s something wrong with our journalism, or our attention priorities. This wasn’t classified. So yeah, it’s good that we have some information about this now.
When the first we hear of the fact that we’re supporting the Saudis in Yemen is a complaint that the Saudis are bombing civilians, there’s something wrong with our journalism, or our attention priorities. This wasn’t classified. So yeah, it’s good that we have some information about this now.
When the first we hear of the fact that we’re supporting the Saudis in Yemen is a complaint that the Saudis are bombing civilians, there’s something wrong with our journalism, or our attention priorities. This wasn’t classified. So yeah, it’s good that we have some information about this now.
You like playing with counterfactuals, so here’s one for you: would this have been more or less likely to have happened if the media, NGOs, and yes, even members of the public, had been good little obedient, trusting children who sit down and shut up when the Serious Grownups are Doing Politics?
I think Samantha Power would most definitely have done this without public pressure. If you and Donald Johnson think that anyone had to bring this to her attention, or that she is lacking in moral fortitude, or that anyone has to use Glenn Greenwald’s Initial Caps Stylebook to Describe Her As A Serious Grownup, you are definitely more clueless than I thought.
You like playing with counterfactuals, so here’s one for you: would this have been more or less likely to have happened if the media, NGOs, and yes, even members of the public, had been good little obedient, trusting children who sit down and shut up when the Serious Grownups are Doing Politics?
I think Samantha Power would most definitely have done this without public pressure. If you and Donald Johnson think that anyone had to bring this to her attention, or that she is lacking in moral fortitude, or that anyone has to use Glenn Greenwald’s Initial Caps Stylebook to Describe Her As A Serious Grownup, you are definitely more clueless than I thought.
You like playing with counterfactuals, so here’s one for you: would this have been more or less likely to have happened if the media, NGOs, and yes, even members of the public, had been good little obedient, trusting children who sit down and shut up when the Serious Grownups are Doing Politics?
I think Samantha Power would most definitely have done this without public pressure. If you and Donald Johnson think that anyone had to bring this to her attention, or that she is lacking in moral fortitude, or that anyone has to use Glenn Greenwald’s Initial Caps Stylebook to Describe Her As A Serious Grownup, you are definitely more clueless than I thought.
Why must we assume that the first anyone hears of this is when you first hear of this? That assumption is beyond problematic, as you’ve shown a pointed aversion to looking at anything that might seem unsavory about US foreign policy. This may be the first you heard about it, by all appearances for cheerful lack of trying, but that doesn’t mean this is the first “we” have information about it.
Why must we assume that the first anyone hears of this is when you first hear of this? That assumption is beyond problematic, as you’ve shown a pointed aversion to looking at anything that might seem unsavory about US foreign policy. This may be the first you heard about it, by all appearances for cheerful lack of trying, but that doesn’t mean this is the first “we” have information about it.
Why must we assume that the first anyone hears of this is when you first hear of this? That assumption is beyond problematic, as you’ve shown a pointed aversion to looking at anything that might seem unsavory about US foreign policy. This may be the first you heard about it, by all appearances for cheerful lack of trying, but that doesn’t mean this is the first “we” have information about it.
I think Samantha Power would most definitely have done this without public pressure. If you and Donald Johnson think that anyone had to bring this to her attention, or that she is lacking in moral fortitude, or that anyone has to use Glenn Greenwald’s Initial Caps Stylebook to Describe Her As A Serious Grownup, you are definitely more clueless than I thought.
Prove it. Show some evidence that the administration wants to shine sunlight on the shady corners of our foreign policy. You’re right back to faith-based assertions, and virtue-ethics-as-I-see-it as proof. All you have is exasperated, put-upon sighs about our condescension and naivete, coupled with admonishments to sit down and shut up. Oh, and we’ve converged on your personal equivalent of Godwin; in any argument with you, it’s always a question of when, not it, you will compare your opponent to the arch-devil Greenwald in order to underscore the severity of our unserious perfidy…
I think Samantha Power would most definitely have done this without public pressure. If you and Donald Johnson think that anyone had to bring this to her attention, or that she is lacking in moral fortitude, or that anyone has to use Glenn Greenwald’s Initial Caps Stylebook to Describe Her As A Serious Grownup, you are definitely more clueless than I thought.
Prove it. Show some evidence that the administration wants to shine sunlight on the shady corners of our foreign policy. You’re right back to faith-based assertions, and virtue-ethics-as-I-see-it as proof. All you have is exasperated, put-upon sighs about our condescension and naivete, coupled with admonishments to sit down and shut up. Oh, and we’ve converged on your personal equivalent of Godwin; in any argument with you, it’s always a question of when, not it, you will compare your opponent to the arch-devil Greenwald in order to underscore the severity of our unserious perfidy…
I think Samantha Power would most definitely have done this without public pressure. If you and Donald Johnson think that anyone had to bring this to her attention, or that she is lacking in moral fortitude, or that anyone has to use Glenn Greenwald’s Initial Caps Stylebook to Describe Her As A Serious Grownup, you are definitely more clueless than I thought.
Prove it. Show some evidence that the administration wants to shine sunlight on the shady corners of our foreign policy. You’re right back to faith-based assertions, and virtue-ethics-as-I-see-it as proof. All you have is exasperated, put-upon sighs about our condescension and naivete, coupled with admonishments to sit down and shut up. Oh, and we’ve converged on your personal equivalent of Godwin; in any argument with you, it’s always a question of when, not it, you will compare your opponent to the arch-devil Greenwald in order to underscore the severity of our unserious perfidy…
Samantha Power’s genocide book focused on US sins of omission– that is, when genocide was committed by enemies or people who weren’t our allies and we did nothing about it. Rwanda, for instance. She has a footnote about East Timor, nothing about the massacres of communists and others under Suharto (she did point out that the reason the definition of genocide doesn’t include mass political slaughters was because of Stalin’s influence) and nothing about Guatemala. In those cases the US aided the killers ( there is debate about whether there was US involvement in the mid 60’s slaughter).
I think that was a career choice. She actually said something to the effect that American officials sometimes couldn’t grasp evil. Her hero Richard Holbrooke was intimately involved in setting Indonesian policy under Carter.
You get a lot of mainstream praise if you say America needs to be more involved in stopping genocide by other people. You get relegated to Chomsky or Greenwald land if you go further and point to cases where we actively supported genocide or mass murder (I personally don’t see a big difference between the mass murder in El Salvador and the genocide in Guatemala.)
Samantha Power’s genocide book focused on US sins of omission– that is, when genocide was committed by enemies or people who weren’t our allies and we did nothing about it. Rwanda, for instance. She has a footnote about East Timor, nothing about the massacres of communists and others under Suharto (she did point out that the reason the definition of genocide doesn’t include mass political slaughters was because of Stalin’s influence) and nothing about Guatemala. In those cases the US aided the killers ( there is debate about whether there was US involvement in the mid 60’s slaughter).
I think that was a career choice. She actually said something to the effect that American officials sometimes couldn’t grasp evil. Her hero Richard Holbrooke was intimately involved in setting Indonesian policy under Carter.
You get a lot of mainstream praise if you say America needs to be more involved in stopping genocide by other people. You get relegated to Chomsky or Greenwald land if you go further and point to cases where we actively supported genocide or mass murder (I personally don’t see a big difference between the mass murder in El Salvador and the genocide in Guatemala.)
Samantha Power’s genocide book focused on US sins of omission– that is, when genocide was committed by enemies or people who weren’t our allies and we did nothing about it. Rwanda, for instance. She has a footnote about East Timor, nothing about the massacres of communists and others under Suharto (she did point out that the reason the definition of genocide doesn’t include mass political slaughters was because of Stalin’s influence) and nothing about Guatemala. In those cases the US aided the killers ( there is debate about whether there was US involvement in the mid 60’s slaughter).
I think that was a career choice. She actually said something to the effect that American officials sometimes couldn’t grasp evil. Her hero Richard Holbrooke was intimately involved in setting Indonesian policy under Carter.
You get a lot of mainstream praise if you say America needs to be more involved in stopping genocide by other people. You get relegated to Chomsky or Greenwald land if you go further and point to cases where we actively supported genocide or mass murder (I personally don’t see a big difference between the mass murder in El Salvador and the genocide in Guatemala.)
shady corners of our foreign policy.
No such thing. Can’t talk to a Greenwald zombie. Sorry.
shady corners of our foreign policy.
No such thing. Can’t talk to a Greenwald zombie. Sorry.
shady corners of our foreign policy.
No such thing. Can’t talk to a Greenwald zombie. Sorry.
Sapient, I am 100% sure you’ve read more Greenwald, and more recently, than I ever have. So you can take your petty, childish, holier-than-thou copouts and… well, frankly I don’t care what you do with them.
Sapient, I am 100% sure you’ve read more Greenwald, and more recently, than I ever have. So you can take your petty, childish, holier-than-thou copouts and… well, frankly I don’t care what you do with them.
Sapient, I am 100% sure you’ve read more Greenwald, and more recently, than I ever have. So you can take your petty, childish, holier-than-thou copouts and… well, frankly I don’t care what you do with them.
I think that was a career choice.
Not sure you’ve let us know what your career choice has been.
I think that was a career choice.
Not sure you’ve let us know what your career choice has been.
I think that was a career choice.
Not sure you’ve let us know what your career choice has been.
God, sapient, when you’re on a roll you hit every aspect of argumentum ad hominem. Or maybe when you’re absolutely not even vaguely on a roll. But in any case, go you?
God, sapient, when you’re on a roll you hit every aspect of argumentum ad hominem. Or maybe when you’re absolutely not even vaguely on a roll. But in any case, go you?
God, sapient, when you’re on a roll you hit every aspect of argumentum ad hominem. Or maybe when you’re absolutely not even vaguely on a roll. But in any case, go you?
I read Greenwald, but he usually isn’t a primary source. Chomsky played a similar role in the pre- blog era. He’d refer to human rights reports I might not have known about– in the really old days I could order them if interested. By the late 90’s if memory serves I could find them online. Nowadays one doesn’t need Glenn for that most of the time, but it is nice having someone with no concern for mainstream respectability writing articles about US foreign policy.
When it comes to war crimes, US connected or not, HRW is generally a good source. I find Amnesty International harder to search.
I read Greenwald, but he usually isn’t a primary source. Chomsky played a similar role in the pre- blog era. He’d refer to human rights reports I might not have known about– in the really old days I could order them if interested. By the late 90’s if memory serves I could find them online. Nowadays one doesn’t need Glenn for that most of the time, but it is nice having someone with no concern for mainstream respectability writing articles about US foreign policy.
When it comes to war crimes, US connected or not, HRW is generally a good source. I find Amnesty International harder to search.
I read Greenwald, but he usually isn’t a primary source. Chomsky played a similar role in the pre- blog era. He’d refer to human rights reports I might not have known about– in the really old days I could order them if interested. By the late 90’s if memory serves I could find them online. Nowadays one doesn’t need Glenn for that most of the time, but it is nice having someone with no concern for mainstream respectability writing articles about US foreign policy.
When it comes to war crimes, US connected or not, HRW is generally a good source. I find Amnesty International harder to search.
You’re funny, NV, talking about ad hominem. But, Donald worries about careerism (an accusation that I think is really weird whenever it’s lodged against people in various fields). I’m wondering how he makes his living, or whether he needs to (and if he doesn’t, whether he’s got a gig of some sort).
You’re funny, NV, talking about ad hominem. But, Donald worries about careerism (an accusation that I think is really weird whenever it’s lodged against people in various fields). I’m wondering how he makes his living, or whether he needs to (and if he doesn’t, whether he’s got a gig of some sort).
You’re funny, NV, talking about ad hominem. But, Donald worries about careerism (an accusation that I think is really weird whenever it’s lodged against people in various fields). I’m wondering how he makes his living, or whether he needs to (and if he doesn’t, whether he’s got a gig of some sort).
Careerism in the case of Samantha Power means I think she wanted a career in circles of, well, power. You don’t get that if you have a reputation as some wild-eyed left wing radical who accuses the US government of complicity in mass murder. You are considered a respectable Wilsonian idealist if you focus on the crimes of others.
Simple enough to understand, I think.
Careerism in the case of Samantha Power means I think she wanted a career in circles of, well, power. You don’t get that if you have a reputation as some wild-eyed left wing radical who accuses the US government of complicity in mass murder. You are considered a respectable Wilsonian idealist if you focus on the crimes of others.
Simple enough to understand, I think.
Careerism in the case of Samantha Power means I think she wanted a career in circles of, well, power. You don’t get that if you have a reputation as some wild-eyed left wing radical who accuses the US government of complicity in mass murder. You are considered a respectable Wilsonian idealist if you focus on the crimes of others.
Simple enough to understand, I think.
if you have a reputation as some wild-eyed left wing radical who accuses the US government of complicity in mass murder
And if that’s all you’ve got, you ain’t got much.
if you have a reputation as some wild-eyed left wing radical who accuses the US government of complicity in mass murder
And if that’s all you’ve got, you ain’t got much.
if you have a reputation as some wild-eyed left wing radical who accuses the US government of complicity in mass murder
And if that’s all you’ve got, you ain’t got much.
Obviously Dean Rusk had probity and good sense. So he had a “lot” I take it.
Obviously Dean Rusk had probity and good sense. So he had a “lot” I take it.
Obviously Dean Rusk had probity and good sense. So he had a “lot” I take it.
“What my not terribly refined sense of morality wants is that Americans openly discuss our role when our government is complicit in war crimes”
“may be complicit in war crimes” or “when I think our government is complicit in war crimes” or ” when our government provides support for someone at war who I think may be committing war crimes”. Obviously, we, the US government, don’t believe we are committing war crimes. So YOUR opinion should be what’s front page?
“What my not terribly refined sense of morality wants is that Americans openly discuss our role when our government is complicit in war crimes”
“may be complicit in war crimes” or “when I think our government is complicit in war crimes” or ” when our government provides support for someone at war who I think may be committing war crimes”. Obviously, we, the US government, don’t believe we are committing war crimes. So YOUR opinion should be what’s front page?
“What my not terribly refined sense of morality wants is that Americans openly discuss our role when our government is complicit in war crimes”
“may be complicit in war crimes” or “when I think our government is complicit in war crimes” or ” when our government provides support for someone at war who I think may be committing war crimes”. Obviously, we, the US government, don’t believe we are committing war crimes. So YOUR opinion should be what’s front page?
If someone wanted to write a book on the history of the US and genocide, wouldn’t it be logical for that person to include the cases where the US actually supplied the weapons and diplomatic support for the killers? In the case of East Timor this support for Indonesia stretched out over five Presidents of both parties. People have written on this. I vaguely recall reading a book about the Bundy brothers which discussed the massacres under Suharto. Someone recently wrote a book about Pakistan’s mass killings in Bangladesh in the early 70’s. Hersh wrote about that in his Kissinger book. And of course under Reagan we supported the Guatemalan regime as it committed ISIS level brutality against the Mayans.
In other words, if you really want to write a history of US policy and genocide, obviously you’d want to include chapters on the most disgraceful cases, the ones I just mentioned, where we actually sided with the killers when it was happening, in some cases lying about the atrocities and giving weapons to the killers. Inevitably one would have to discuss whether American officials deserve to be brought to trial. Hitchens did that with Kissinger, an admittedly easy target.
Samantha Power didn’t do that. She wrote the sort of book that gets you widespread acclaim in the circles that matter. It’s about our sins of omission, a relatively safe topic.
If someone wanted to write a book on the history of the US and genocide, wouldn’t it be logical for that person to include the cases where the US actually supplied the weapons and diplomatic support for the killers? In the case of East Timor this support for Indonesia stretched out over five Presidents of both parties. People have written on this. I vaguely recall reading a book about the Bundy brothers which discussed the massacres under Suharto. Someone recently wrote a book about Pakistan’s mass killings in Bangladesh in the early 70’s. Hersh wrote about that in his Kissinger book. And of course under Reagan we supported the Guatemalan regime as it committed ISIS level brutality against the Mayans.
In other words, if you really want to write a history of US policy and genocide, obviously you’d want to include chapters on the most disgraceful cases, the ones I just mentioned, where we actually sided with the killers when it was happening, in some cases lying about the atrocities and giving weapons to the killers. Inevitably one would have to discuss whether American officials deserve to be brought to trial. Hitchens did that with Kissinger, an admittedly easy target.
Samantha Power didn’t do that. She wrote the sort of book that gets you widespread acclaim in the circles that matter. It’s about our sins of omission, a relatively safe topic.
If someone wanted to write a book on the history of the US and genocide, wouldn’t it be logical for that person to include the cases where the US actually supplied the weapons and diplomatic support for the killers? In the case of East Timor this support for Indonesia stretched out over five Presidents of both parties. People have written on this. I vaguely recall reading a book about the Bundy brothers which discussed the massacres under Suharto. Someone recently wrote a book about Pakistan’s mass killings in Bangladesh in the early 70’s. Hersh wrote about that in his Kissinger book. And of course under Reagan we supported the Guatemalan regime as it committed ISIS level brutality against the Mayans.
In other words, if you really want to write a history of US policy and genocide, obviously you’d want to include chapters on the most disgraceful cases, the ones I just mentioned, where we actually sided with the killers when it was happening, in some cases lying about the atrocities and giving weapons to the killers. Inevitably one would have to discuss whether American officials deserve to be brought to trial. Hitchens did that with Kissinger, an admittedly easy target.
Samantha Power didn’t do that. She wrote the sort of book that gets you widespread acclaim in the circles that matter. It’s about our sins of omission, a relatively safe topic.
Furthermore, once you realize just how many mass murderers the US has supported, the whole rationale for “A Problem From Hell” just looks absurd. She starts out agonizing over how well- intentioned American statesmen could have allowed others to commit genocide. Not so hard to understand if you realize we commonly lionized people like Rios Montt or ( in Angola) Jonas Savimbi, who I read once personally beat children to death. I should look this up, but iirc Robert Dole wanted the US to support the Renamo movement in Mozambique. In an uncharacteristic display of honesty the Reagan State Department compared their behavior to the Khmer Rouge, but Renamo was the darling of the American far right a the time. The real mystery here is why we supported Savimbi’s UNITA movement and not Renamo. They weren’t that different in their behavior.
Furthermore, once you realize just how many mass murderers the US has supported, the whole rationale for “A Problem From Hell” just looks absurd. She starts out agonizing over how well- intentioned American statesmen could have allowed others to commit genocide. Not so hard to understand if you realize we commonly lionized people like Rios Montt or ( in Angola) Jonas Savimbi, who I read once personally beat children to death. I should look this up, but iirc Robert Dole wanted the US to support the Renamo movement in Mozambique. In an uncharacteristic display of honesty the Reagan State Department compared their behavior to the Khmer Rouge, but Renamo was the darling of the American far right a the time. The real mystery here is why we supported Savimbi’s UNITA movement and not Renamo. They weren’t that different in their behavior.
Furthermore, once you realize just how many mass murderers the US has supported, the whole rationale for “A Problem From Hell” just looks absurd. She starts out agonizing over how well- intentioned American statesmen could have allowed others to commit genocide. Not so hard to understand if you realize we commonly lionized people like Rios Montt or ( in Angola) Jonas Savimbi, who I read once personally beat children to death. I should look this up, but iirc Robert Dole wanted the US to support the Renamo movement in Mozambique. In an uncharacteristic display of honesty the Reagan State Department compared their behavior to the Khmer Rouge, but Renamo was the darling of the American far right a the time. The real mystery here is why we supported Savimbi’s UNITA movement and not Renamo. They weren’t that different in their behavior.
You’re funny, NV, talking about ad hominem.
And you’re hilarious choosing that hill to tu quoque on. Just looking at your immediately two prior comments:
No such thing. Can’t talk to a Greenwald zombie. Sorry.
My arguments have no merit and need not be addressed because of who you decided I read, rather than their merits? Hmm.
Not sure you’ve let us know what your career choice has been.
DJ’s personal characteristics are suddenly not just pertinent to the discussion, but more pertinent than than his arguments? Hmm.
You’re funny, NV, talking about ad hominem.
And you’re hilarious choosing that hill to tu quoque on. Just looking at your immediately two prior comments:
No such thing. Can’t talk to a Greenwald zombie. Sorry.
My arguments have no merit and need not be addressed because of who you decided I read, rather than their merits? Hmm.
Not sure you’ve let us know what your career choice has been.
DJ’s personal characteristics are suddenly not just pertinent to the discussion, but more pertinent than than his arguments? Hmm.
You’re funny, NV, talking about ad hominem.
And you’re hilarious choosing that hill to tu quoque on. Just looking at your immediately two prior comments:
No such thing. Can’t talk to a Greenwald zombie. Sorry.
My arguments have no merit and need not be addressed because of who you decided I read, rather than their merits? Hmm.
Not sure you’ve let us know what your career choice has been.
DJ’s personal characteristics are suddenly not just pertinent to the discussion, but more pertinent than than his arguments? Hmm.
I looked it up– yeah, Dole supported Renamo. Dole was basically a decent guy or so I vaguely recall.
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/22/opinion/us-callousness-and-mozambique-massacres.html
I looked it up– yeah, Dole supported Renamo. Dole was basically a decent guy or so I vaguely recall.
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/22/opinion/us-callousness-and-mozambique-massacres.html
I looked it up– yeah, Dole supported Renamo. Dole was basically a decent guy or so I vaguely recall.
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/22/opinion/us-callousness-and-mozambique-massacres.html
NV– I mostly just ignore sapient’s sillier remarks. I try to respond to the bits that are substantive. Sapient was mad that I accused Power of writing A Problem From Hell with career ambitions in mind, so sapient somehow thought it would be clever to ask about what I do for a living. Not really very interesting, but I thought it worthwhile to explain why I am not a fan of her book. Basically it encapsulates in microcosm what is wrong with our political and media elites– they don’t want to have honest discussions about the mass murderers they have supported, but are happy to discuss all the cases when they didn’t intervene to stop others.
NV– I mostly just ignore sapient’s sillier remarks. I try to respond to the bits that are substantive. Sapient was mad that I accused Power of writing A Problem From Hell with career ambitions in mind, so sapient somehow thought it would be clever to ask about what I do for a living. Not really very interesting, but I thought it worthwhile to explain why I am not a fan of her book. Basically it encapsulates in microcosm what is wrong with our political and media elites– they don’t want to have honest discussions about the mass murderers they have supported, but are happy to discuss all the cases when they didn’t intervene to stop others.
NV– I mostly just ignore sapient’s sillier remarks. I try to respond to the bits that are substantive. Sapient was mad that I accused Power of writing A Problem From Hell with career ambitions in mind, so sapient somehow thought it would be clever to ask about what I do for a living. Not really very interesting, but I thought it worthwhile to explain why I am not a fan of her book. Basically it encapsulates in microcosm what is wrong with our political and media elites– they don’t want to have honest discussions about the mass murderers they have supported, but are happy to discuss all the cases when they didn’t intervene to stop others.
Actually, Marty, if you bothered to read the NYT link I provided way up thread, the Administration knows perfectly well it is linked to the Saudis as they bomb schools and it worries them.
And yeah, if we are arming and assisting Saudi Arabia as it bombs civilians I think that deserves a lot more attention than whatever bs nonsense Fox New dredges up to sling Obama’s way. I still don’t know what the hell Benghazi was supposed to be about– serious conservatives would have focused on whether the Libyan intervention or this Yemen policy are such good ideas. But your side of the political fence is dominated by liars and idiots. There are sensible conservatives, but one rarely hears anything from them. They are drowned out by the clowns.
Actually, Marty, if you bothered to read the NYT link I provided way up thread, the Administration knows perfectly well it is linked to the Saudis as they bomb schools and it worries them.
And yeah, if we are arming and assisting Saudi Arabia as it bombs civilians I think that deserves a lot more attention than whatever bs nonsense Fox New dredges up to sling Obama’s way. I still don’t know what the hell Benghazi was supposed to be about– serious conservatives would have focused on whether the Libyan intervention or this Yemen policy are such good ideas. But your side of the political fence is dominated by liars and idiots. There are sensible conservatives, but one rarely hears anything from them. They are drowned out by the clowns.
Actually, Marty, if you bothered to read the NYT link I provided way up thread, the Administration knows perfectly well it is linked to the Saudis as they bomb schools and it worries them.
And yeah, if we are arming and assisting Saudi Arabia as it bombs civilians I think that deserves a lot more attention than whatever bs nonsense Fox New dredges up to sling Obama’s way. I still don’t know what the hell Benghazi was supposed to be about– serious conservatives would have focused on whether the Libyan intervention or this Yemen policy are such good ideas. But your side of the political fence is dominated by liars and idiots. There are sensible conservatives, but one rarely hears anything from them. They are drowned out by the clowns.
DJ – I should ignore them, but I unfortunately cut my Internet teeth on the Usenet and (bad) old habits die hard…
DJ – I should ignore them, but I unfortunately cut my Internet teeth on the Usenet and (bad) old habits die hard…
DJ – I should ignore them, but I unfortunately cut my Internet teeth on the Usenet and (bad) old habits die hard…
DJ – Funny, I have lots of people on my side of the fence that are sure your side is dominated by liars and idiots.
I read lots of things about the idiocy of the Libyan intervention, mostly from conservatives. The answer was that Obama had found a better way to intervene. Not so much.
Yemen, not so much.
Benghazi is about the administrations, particularly Hilary, decision to leave the people there to die. Having known they were in a dangerous situation, there was no plan to protect them from a perfectly predictable attack. When it came, the response was slow and inadequate, slowed by political concerns,and ultimately nothing was done to save them. I am sure it is not uniquely American, but it is deeply ingrained in our culture to do everything possible to save someone who is in harms way in the service of our country. Almost nothing was done and then, they lied about it.
Benghazi is a personal failing of Obama and Clinton to understand the priorities of the people they represent.
Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, and ISIS among others were professional miscalculations that point out how unqualified they were/are to do their jobs.
DJ – Funny, I have lots of people on my side of the fence that are sure your side is dominated by liars and idiots.
I read lots of things about the idiocy of the Libyan intervention, mostly from conservatives. The answer was that Obama had found a better way to intervene. Not so much.
Yemen, not so much.
Benghazi is about the administrations, particularly Hilary, decision to leave the people there to die. Having known they were in a dangerous situation, there was no plan to protect them from a perfectly predictable attack. When it came, the response was slow and inadequate, slowed by political concerns,and ultimately nothing was done to save them. I am sure it is not uniquely American, but it is deeply ingrained in our culture to do everything possible to save someone who is in harms way in the service of our country. Almost nothing was done and then, they lied about it.
Benghazi is a personal failing of Obama and Clinton to understand the priorities of the people they represent.
Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, and ISIS among others were professional miscalculations that point out how unqualified they were/are to do their jobs.
DJ – Funny, I have lots of people on my side of the fence that are sure your side is dominated by liars and idiots.
I read lots of things about the idiocy of the Libyan intervention, mostly from conservatives. The answer was that Obama had found a better way to intervene. Not so much.
Yemen, not so much.
Benghazi is about the administrations, particularly Hilary, decision to leave the people there to die. Having known they were in a dangerous situation, there was no plan to protect them from a perfectly predictable attack. When it came, the response was slow and inadequate, slowed by political concerns,and ultimately nothing was done to save them. I am sure it is not uniquely American, but it is deeply ingrained in our culture to do everything possible to save someone who is in harms way in the service of our country. Almost nothing was done and then, they lied about it.
Benghazi is a personal failing of Obama and Clinton to understand the priorities of the people they represent.
Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, and ISIS among others were professional miscalculations that point out how unqualified they were/are to do their jobs.
I doubt that there is a good way to intervene in the middle east. Step into a clusterf***, you will end up in the middle of a clusterf***.
Not the same thing as saying we should stay out of it and let the chips fall, just trying to set the expectations at a reasonable point.
Regarding Benghazi, if there was something unique about the level of risk, and/or uniquely bad or ineffective about the response by State or the DoD, I have to say I’m not aware of it. God knows we’ve all been over it with a fine-tooth comb, ad nauseum.
It was a violent, chaotic place and time. Maybe we should have just pulled everybody out. We didn’t.
Maybe you’re aware of something that has eluded the rest of us. Where the ‘rest of us’ includes about seventy-eleven Congressional hearings and an army and a half of Breitbart wanna-bes. If so, please feel free to share.
Also, too, Trey Gowdy really, really, really needs a better haircut.
I doubt that there is a good way to intervene in the middle east. Step into a clusterf***, you will end up in the middle of a clusterf***.
Not the same thing as saying we should stay out of it and let the chips fall, just trying to set the expectations at a reasonable point.
Regarding Benghazi, if there was something unique about the level of risk, and/or uniquely bad or ineffective about the response by State or the DoD, I have to say I’m not aware of it. God knows we’ve all been over it with a fine-tooth comb, ad nauseum.
It was a violent, chaotic place and time. Maybe we should have just pulled everybody out. We didn’t.
Maybe you’re aware of something that has eluded the rest of us. Where the ‘rest of us’ includes about seventy-eleven Congressional hearings and an army and a half of Breitbart wanna-bes. If so, please feel free to share.
Also, too, Trey Gowdy really, really, really needs a better haircut.
I doubt that there is a good way to intervene in the middle east. Step into a clusterf***, you will end up in the middle of a clusterf***.
Not the same thing as saying we should stay out of it and let the chips fall, just trying to set the expectations at a reasonable point.
Regarding Benghazi, if there was something unique about the level of risk, and/or uniquely bad or ineffective about the response by State or the DoD, I have to say I’m not aware of it. God knows we’ve all been over it with a fine-tooth comb, ad nauseum.
It was a violent, chaotic place and time. Maybe we should have just pulled everybody out. We didn’t.
Maybe you’re aware of something that has eluded the rest of us. Where the ‘rest of us’ includes about seventy-eleven Congressional hearings and an army and a half of Breitbart wanna-bes. If so, please feel free to share.
Also, too, Trey Gowdy really, really, really needs a better haircut.
I am sure it is not uniquely American, but it is deeply ingrained in our culture to do everything possible to save someone who is in harms way in the service of our country.
I would commend you to examine who was outraged and how they expressed in regards to the recovery of SGT Bowe Bergandahl. It’s… instructive as to just how deeply ingrained and apolitical the cultural value you refer to is. You may not have the easy barometer of opinions that I do in the form of a Facebook feed full of past and present Soldiers (many of them paralegals who really should know better), but I assure you that this value is not particularly inflexible, nor immune to partisan consideration.
I am sure it is not uniquely American, but it is deeply ingrained in our culture to do everything possible to save someone who is in harms way in the service of our country.
I would commend you to examine who was outraged and how they expressed in regards to the recovery of SGT Bowe Bergandahl. It’s… instructive as to just how deeply ingrained and apolitical the cultural value you refer to is. You may not have the easy barometer of opinions that I do in the form of a Facebook feed full of past and present Soldiers (many of them paralegals who really should know better), but I assure you that this value is not particularly inflexible, nor immune to partisan consideration.
I am sure it is not uniquely American, but it is deeply ingrained in our culture to do everything possible to save someone who is in harms way in the service of our country.
I would commend you to examine who was outraged and how they expressed in regards to the recovery of SGT Bowe Bergandahl. It’s… instructive as to just how deeply ingrained and apolitical the cultural value you refer to is. You may not have the easy barometer of opinions that I do in the form of a Facebook feed full of past and present Soldiers (many of them paralegals who really should know better), but I assure you that this value is not particularly inflexible, nor immune to partisan consideration.
You know, in my lifetime I’ve seen the Vietnam war extended to support a political campaign, I’ve seen us respond to the killing of a couple hundred Marines in Lebanon with a bold invasion of the island of Grenada, I’ve seen us send cakes to the Ayatollahs in order to seal a deal where we sold them weapons to finance – illegally – our proxies in South America.
That last, perhaps as repayment for the ayatollahs holding 52 Americans until 20 freaking minutes after the conclusion of Reagan’s inaugural address. Nice guy, that Ronnie.
It’s a really, really, really long list. I’m not even getting into the excellent adventures of W and Cheney.
I just can’t get worked up about ‘professional miscalculations’ on the part of the current administration, in the area of foreign policy.
As far as I can tell, Obama et al are trying to make the best of a crap situation. I’m sure there are things, perhaps many things, that they can be faulted for.
What I don’t see is Obama et al kicking the hornet’s nests of the world just to see what happens.
I’m good with that.
The middle east is a mess. It’s been a mess as long as I’ve been alive, and probably for longer than that.
Either we stay out and let the chips fall, or we involve ourselves and accept the fact that anything we do, or don’t do, is not likely to turn out particularly well.
You know, in my lifetime I’ve seen the Vietnam war extended to support a political campaign, I’ve seen us respond to the killing of a couple hundred Marines in Lebanon with a bold invasion of the island of Grenada, I’ve seen us send cakes to the Ayatollahs in order to seal a deal where we sold them weapons to finance – illegally – our proxies in South America.
That last, perhaps as repayment for the ayatollahs holding 52 Americans until 20 freaking minutes after the conclusion of Reagan’s inaugural address. Nice guy, that Ronnie.
It’s a really, really, really long list. I’m not even getting into the excellent adventures of W and Cheney.
I just can’t get worked up about ‘professional miscalculations’ on the part of the current administration, in the area of foreign policy.
As far as I can tell, Obama et al are trying to make the best of a crap situation. I’m sure there are things, perhaps many things, that they can be faulted for.
What I don’t see is Obama et al kicking the hornet’s nests of the world just to see what happens.
I’m good with that.
The middle east is a mess. It’s been a mess as long as I’ve been alive, and probably for longer than that.
Either we stay out and let the chips fall, or we involve ourselves and accept the fact that anything we do, or don’t do, is not likely to turn out particularly well.
You know, in my lifetime I’ve seen the Vietnam war extended to support a political campaign, I’ve seen us respond to the killing of a couple hundred Marines in Lebanon with a bold invasion of the island of Grenada, I’ve seen us send cakes to the Ayatollahs in order to seal a deal where we sold them weapons to finance – illegally – our proxies in South America.
That last, perhaps as repayment for the ayatollahs holding 52 Americans until 20 freaking minutes after the conclusion of Reagan’s inaugural address. Nice guy, that Ronnie.
It’s a really, really, really long list. I’m not even getting into the excellent adventures of W and Cheney.
I just can’t get worked up about ‘professional miscalculations’ on the part of the current administration, in the area of foreign policy.
As far as I can tell, Obama et al are trying to make the best of a crap situation. I’m sure there are things, perhaps many things, that they can be faulted for.
What I don’t see is Obama et al kicking the hornet’s nests of the world just to see what happens.
I’m good with that.
The middle east is a mess. It’s been a mess as long as I’ve been alive, and probably for longer than that.
Either we stay out and let the chips fall, or we involve ourselves and accept the fact that anything we do, or don’t do, is not likely to turn out particularly well.
You know, in my lifetime I’ve seen the Vietnam war extended to support a political campaign, I’ve seen us respond to the killing of a couple hundred Marines in Lebanon with a bold invasion of the island of Grenada, I’ve seen us send cakes to the Ayatollahs in order to seal a deal where we sold them weapons to finance – illegally – our proxies in South America.
That last, perhaps as repayment for the ayatollahs holding 52 Americans until 20 freaking minutes after the conclusion of Reagan’s inaugural address. Nice guy, that Ronnie.
It’s a really, really, really long list. I’m not even getting into the excellent adventures of W and Cheney.
I just can’t get worked up about ‘professional miscalculations’ on the part of the current administration, in the area of foreign policy.
As far as I can tell, Obama et al are trying to make the best of a crap situation. I’m sure there are things, perhaps many things, that they can be faulted for.
What I don’t see is Obama et al kicking the hornet’s nests of the world just to see what happens.
I’m good with that.
The middle east is a mess. It’s been a mess as long as I’ve been alive, and probably for longer than that.
Either we stay out and let the chips fall, or we involve ourselves and accept the fact that anything we do, or don’t do, is not likely to turn out particularly well.
You know, in my lifetime I’ve seen the Vietnam war extended to support a political campaign, I’ve seen us respond to the killing of a couple hundred Marines in Lebanon with a bold invasion of the island of Grenada, I’ve seen us send cakes to the Ayatollahs in order to seal a deal where we sold them weapons to finance – illegally – our proxies in South America.
That last, perhaps as repayment for the ayatollahs holding 52 Americans until 20 freaking minutes after the conclusion of Reagan’s inaugural address. Nice guy, that Ronnie.
It’s a really, really, really long list. I’m not even getting into the excellent adventures of W and Cheney.
I just can’t get worked up about ‘professional miscalculations’ on the part of the current administration, in the area of foreign policy.
As far as I can tell, Obama et al are trying to make the best of a crap situation. I’m sure there are things, perhaps many things, that they can be faulted for.
What I don’t see is Obama et al kicking the hornet’s nests of the world just to see what happens.
I’m good with that.
The middle east is a mess. It’s been a mess as long as I’ve been alive, and probably for longer than that.
Either we stay out and let the chips fall, or we involve ourselves and accept the fact that anything we do, or don’t do, is not likely to turn out particularly well.
You know, in my lifetime I’ve seen the Vietnam war extended to support a political campaign, I’ve seen us respond to the killing of a couple hundred Marines in Lebanon with a bold invasion of the island of Grenada, I’ve seen us send cakes to the Ayatollahs in order to seal a deal where we sold them weapons to finance – illegally – our proxies in South America.
That last, perhaps as repayment for the ayatollahs holding 52 Americans until 20 freaking minutes after the conclusion of Reagan’s inaugural address. Nice guy, that Ronnie.
It’s a really, really, really long list. I’m not even getting into the excellent adventures of W and Cheney.
I just can’t get worked up about ‘professional miscalculations’ on the part of the current administration, in the area of foreign policy.
As far as I can tell, Obama et al are trying to make the best of a crap situation. I’m sure there are things, perhaps many things, that they can be faulted for.
What I don’t see is Obama et al kicking the hornet’s nests of the world just to see what happens.
I’m good with that.
The middle east is a mess. It’s been a mess as long as I’ve been alive, and probably for longer than that.
Either we stay out and let the chips fall, or we involve ourselves and accept the fact that anything we do, or don’t do, is not likely to turn out particularly well.
I doubt that there is a good way to intervene in the middle east. Step into a clusterf***, you will end up in the middle of a clusterf***.
Y*p. It is also instructive to note that nearly all of our citizenry have absolutely no comprehension of the degree of meddling we take on and the perceptions (sometimes wrong, but always real nonetheless)engendered thereby.
Imagining the shoe on the other foot is something the American public seems incapable of understanding….thus we get idiocies such as, “They hate us for our freedoms.”
The Hegemon blunders on, fatally unaware that the effort to instill and maintain a Pax America will inevitably fail and cost us dearly not just in prestige, but treasure, power, and possibly the loss, or more likely, the abandonment of our democratic institutions as well.
I doubt that there is a good way to intervene in the middle east. Step into a clusterf***, you will end up in the middle of a clusterf***.
Y*p. It is also instructive to note that nearly all of our citizenry have absolutely no comprehension of the degree of meddling we take on and the perceptions (sometimes wrong, but always real nonetheless)engendered thereby.
Imagining the shoe on the other foot is something the American public seems incapable of understanding….thus we get idiocies such as, “They hate us for our freedoms.”
The Hegemon blunders on, fatally unaware that the effort to instill and maintain a Pax America will inevitably fail and cost us dearly not just in prestige, but treasure, power, and possibly the loss, or more likely, the abandonment of our democratic institutions as well.
I doubt that there is a good way to intervene in the middle east. Step into a clusterf***, you will end up in the middle of a clusterf***.
Y*p. It is also instructive to note that nearly all of our citizenry have absolutely no comprehension of the degree of meddling we take on and the perceptions (sometimes wrong, but always real nonetheless)engendered thereby.
Imagining the shoe on the other foot is something the American public seems incapable of understanding….thus we get idiocies such as, “They hate us for our freedoms.”
The Hegemon blunders on, fatally unaware that the effort to instill and maintain a Pax America will inevitably fail and cost us dearly not just in prestige, but treasure, power, and possibly the loss, or more likely, the abandonment of our democratic institutions as well.
Sapient was mad that I accused Power of writing A Problem From Hell with career ambitions in mind, so sapient somehow thought it would be clever to ask about what I do for a living.
Partially true. I don’t really understand why you (or anyone else) would have a problem with someone trying to attain success and, yes, power in order to use that power to change the world for the better. It’s handy to be powerful if you want to exert some influence on policy. Ranting on the web, as I do, is less effective.
Sapient was mad that I accused Power of writing A Problem From Hell with career ambitions in mind, so sapient somehow thought it would be clever to ask about what I do for a living.
Partially true. I don’t really understand why you (or anyone else) would have a problem with someone trying to attain success and, yes, power in order to use that power to change the world for the better. It’s handy to be powerful if you want to exert some influence on policy. Ranting on the web, as I do, is less effective.
Sapient was mad that I accused Power of writing A Problem From Hell with career ambitions in mind, so sapient somehow thought it would be clever to ask about what I do for a living.
Partially true. I don’t really understand why you (or anyone else) would have a problem with someone trying to attain success and, yes, power in order to use that power to change the world for the better. It’s handy to be powerful if you want to exert some influence on policy. Ranting on the web, as I do, is less effective.
“It was a violent, chaotic place and time. Maybe we should have just pulled everybody out. We didn’t. ”
Nor did we adequately protect them, or respond appropriately when they were attacked. I watched a lot of the hearings, no one even questions whether what I am saying is true. It was a “mistake” and we should “move on”. Attempting to hold people accountable is a “witchhunt”. OK. But, it was a big deal and I explained why, because DJ said he didn’t understand.
“It was a violent, chaotic place and time. Maybe we should have just pulled everybody out. We didn’t. ”
Nor did we adequately protect them, or respond appropriately when they were attacked. I watched a lot of the hearings, no one even questions whether what I am saying is true. It was a “mistake” and we should “move on”. Attempting to hold people accountable is a “witchhunt”. OK. But, it was a big deal and I explained why, because DJ said he didn’t understand.
“It was a violent, chaotic place and time. Maybe we should have just pulled everybody out. We didn’t. ”
Nor did we adequately protect them, or respond appropriately when they were attacked. I watched a lot of the hearings, no one even questions whether what I am saying is true. It was a “mistake” and we should “move on”. Attempting to hold people accountable is a “witchhunt”. OK. But, it was a big deal and I explained why, because DJ said he didn’t understand.
Attempting to hold people accountable is a “witchhunt”.
How many attempts do you want?
it was a big deal and I explained why, because DJ said he didn’t understand.
Fair enough.
Attempting to hold people accountable is a “witchhunt”.
How many attempts do you want?
it was a big deal and I explained why, because DJ said he didn’t understand.
Fair enough.
Attempting to hold people accountable is a “witchhunt”.
How many attempts do you want?
it was a big deal and I explained why, because DJ said he didn’t understand.
Fair enough.
Benghazi is about the administrations, particularly Hilary, decision to leave the people there to die.
this is just so fning ridiculous. and the whole “accountability” thing, from the very beginning, has been a blatant, baldfaced, bullshit attempt to skewer Clinton, for purely political reasons: totally transparent and utterly shameful.
Benghazi is about the administrations, particularly Hilary, decision to leave the people there to die.
this is just so fning ridiculous. and the whole “accountability” thing, from the very beginning, has been a blatant, baldfaced, bullshit attempt to skewer Clinton, for purely political reasons: totally transparent and utterly shameful.
Benghazi is about the administrations, particularly Hilary, decision to leave the people there to die.
this is just so fning ridiculous. and the whole “accountability” thing, from the very beginning, has been a blatant, baldfaced, bullshit attempt to skewer Clinton, for purely political reasons: totally transparent and utterly shameful.
I wonder if someone could supply some broader view on countries and their war crimes or other failures to behave properly. Take a look across say the last 300 years. Look at the top 5 – 10 dozen powers in the world, and how they behaved towards the rest of the world. Where does the US rank?
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t want to do better. But it doesn’t seem like we should be outraged that we aren’t perfect either. And a lot of this part of the thread seems to fall into one or the other of those views.
I wonder if someone could supply some broader view on countries and their war crimes or other failures to behave properly. Take a look across say the last 300 years. Look at the top 5 – 10 dozen powers in the world, and how they behaved towards the rest of the world. Where does the US rank?
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t want to do better. But it doesn’t seem like we should be outraged that we aren’t perfect either. And a lot of this part of the thread seems to fall into one or the other of those views.
I wonder if someone could supply some broader view on countries and their war crimes or other failures to behave properly. Take a look across say the last 300 years. Look at the top 5 – 10 dozen powers in the world, and how they behaved towards the rest of the world. Where does the US rank?
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t want to do better. But it doesn’t seem like we should be outraged that we aren’t perfect either. And a lot of this part of the thread seems to fall into one or the other of those views.
Over the course of 2012, the security situation in Benghazi got increasingly dangerous. A security officer for the embassy asked for more folks, and did not receive them. Apparently, there was a deliberate decision in the State Dept to keep a low profile in Libya and specifically Benghazi.
Clinton has at various times accepted responsibility for that decision, and at other times said that she did not make the decision. Those statements may or may not be consistent with each other, depending on how you read things like ‘take full responsibility’ when Very Important People say them.
In any case, there is an argument to be made that mistakes were made in Benghazi, and that those mistakes contributed to the loss of life there.
It’s impossible to say whether more folks on the ground would have prevented the attack, or saved the life of Stevens or any of the other folks. Quite possibly, more folks would have been killed. We don’t know.
There was also good reason to keep a low profile in Libya during the time in question. In retrospect, it was a costly decision.
I’m not sure what ‘accountability’ would look like in a case like this. Should Clinton resign? Should Obama have fired her?
In one of those weird quirks of circumstance, one of the CIA guys killed was the brother of a woman who lived down the block from me at the time. We spent the next couple of months telling reporters who were trying to find out where she lived to piss off. The guy’s nephew mows my lawn, he and his brother got to meet Obama and some other mucky-mucks.
I can tell you that the family figured that the CIA guy – their brother, son, brother-in-law, uncle – knew it was a dangerous gig, that he was an adrenaline junkie and liked to do risky stuff. From their point of view, he died doing what he wanted to do. They had no interest whatsoever in, and frankly were disgusted by, the spectacle of hearing after hearing after hearing after hearing.
This is independent of their individual politics. My impression is that different family members land on different sides of the political spectrum. They’re all united in their distaste for what as been made of CIA guy’s death.
I have no problem with the idea that Clinton or anybody else should be called on the carpet for bad decisions. I have no problem with saying that ‘keeping a low profile’ in Benghazi might not have been a good idea, especially in hindsight. I would have no problem if all of that lead to a re-examination of how we handle situations like that going forward.
The actual hearings that we actually did have were obvious political theater.
The middle east is, and has been, a chaotic and frequently violent place. There are lots and lots of reasons for that, some of which we have contributed to, and many of which we have nothing to do with.
If we choose to be involved there, we are likely to continue to be involved in things that end up going south. No matter what decisions we make, or how we approach it.
Other people, other places, and other situations have dynamics of their own. There’s only so much we can do about it.
Over the course of 2012, the security situation in Benghazi got increasingly dangerous. A security officer for the embassy asked for more folks, and did not receive them. Apparently, there was a deliberate decision in the State Dept to keep a low profile in Libya and specifically Benghazi.
Clinton has at various times accepted responsibility for that decision, and at other times said that she did not make the decision. Those statements may or may not be consistent with each other, depending on how you read things like ‘take full responsibility’ when Very Important People say them.
In any case, there is an argument to be made that mistakes were made in Benghazi, and that those mistakes contributed to the loss of life there.
It’s impossible to say whether more folks on the ground would have prevented the attack, or saved the life of Stevens or any of the other folks. Quite possibly, more folks would have been killed. We don’t know.
There was also good reason to keep a low profile in Libya during the time in question. In retrospect, it was a costly decision.
I’m not sure what ‘accountability’ would look like in a case like this. Should Clinton resign? Should Obama have fired her?
In one of those weird quirks of circumstance, one of the CIA guys killed was the brother of a woman who lived down the block from me at the time. We spent the next couple of months telling reporters who were trying to find out where she lived to piss off. The guy’s nephew mows my lawn, he and his brother got to meet Obama and some other mucky-mucks.
I can tell you that the family figured that the CIA guy – their brother, son, brother-in-law, uncle – knew it was a dangerous gig, that he was an adrenaline junkie and liked to do risky stuff. From their point of view, he died doing what he wanted to do. They had no interest whatsoever in, and frankly were disgusted by, the spectacle of hearing after hearing after hearing after hearing.
This is independent of their individual politics. My impression is that different family members land on different sides of the political spectrum. They’re all united in their distaste for what as been made of CIA guy’s death.
I have no problem with the idea that Clinton or anybody else should be called on the carpet for bad decisions. I have no problem with saying that ‘keeping a low profile’ in Benghazi might not have been a good idea, especially in hindsight. I would have no problem if all of that lead to a re-examination of how we handle situations like that going forward.
The actual hearings that we actually did have were obvious political theater.
The middle east is, and has been, a chaotic and frequently violent place. There are lots and lots of reasons for that, some of which we have contributed to, and many of which we have nothing to do with.
If we choose to be involved there, we are likely to continue to be involved in things that end up going south. No matter what decisions we make, or how we approach it.
Other people, other places, and other situations have dynamics of their own. There’s only so much we can do about it.
Over the course of 2012, the security situation in Benghazi got increasingly dangerous. A security officer for the embassy asked for more folks, and did not receive them. Apparently, there was a deliberate decision in the State Dept to keep a low profile in Libya and specifically Benghazi.
Clinton has at various times accepted responsibility for that decision, and at other times said that she did not make the decision. Those statements may or may not be consistent with each other, depending on how you read things like ‘take full responsibility’ when Very Important People say them.
In any case, there is an argument to be made that mistakes were made in Benghazi, and that those mistakes contributed to the loss of life there.
It’s impossible to say whether more folks on the ground would have prevented the attack, or saved the life of Stevens or any of the other folks. Quite possibly, more folks would have been killed. We don’t know.
There was also good reason to keep a low profile in Libya during the time in question. In retrospect, it was a costly decision.
I’m not sure what ‘accountability’ would look like in a case like this. Should Clinton resign? Should Obama have fired her?
In one of those weird quirks of circumstance, one of the CIA guys killed was the brother of a woman who lived down the block from me at the time. We spent the next couple of months telling reporters who were trying to find out where she lived to piss off. The guy’s nephew mows my lawn, he and his brother got to meet Obama and some other mucky-mucks.
I can tell you that the family figured that the CIA guy – their brother, son, brother-in-law, uncle – knew it was a dangerous gig, that he was an adrenaline junkie and liked to do risky stuff. From their point of view, he died doing what he wanted to do. They had no interest whatsoever in, and frankly were disgusted by, the spectacle of hearing after hearing after hearing after hearing.
This is independent of their individual politics. My impression is that different family members land on different sides of the political spectrum. They’re all united in their distaste for what as been made of CIA guy’s death.
I have no problem with the idea that Clinton or anybody else should be called on the carpet for bad decisions. I have no problem with saying that ‘keeping a low profile’ in Benghazi might not have been a good idea, especially in hindsight. I would have no problem if all of that lead to a re-examination of how we handle situations like that going forward.
The actual hearings that we actually did have were obvious political theater.
The middle east is, and has been, a chaotic and frequently violent place. There are lots and lots of reasons for that, some of which we have contributed to, and many of which we have nothing to do with.
If we choose to be involved there, we are likely to continue to be involved in things that end up going south. No matter what decisions we make, or how we approach it.
Other people, other places, and other situations have dynamics of their own. There’s only so much we can do about it.
I wonder if someone could supply some broader view on countries and their war crimes or other failures to behave properly.
wj, that somewhat misses the point of frustration from the criticizing side. The issue isn’t that the US was the worst of the worst, or suchlike, it’s that we’re Americans, and we routinely praise ourself about our fundamental goodness, or dismiss any atrocities we (or our clients) might commit as inherently more moral than those of others, or forgivable because they were done with right intent (which can be inferred from the fact that the US supported their commission, natch). It’s not that the US is the worst of the worst, and refuses to admit it; it’s that the US isn’t a faultless saint, refuses to admit it, and uses this claim as a justification for both acting with callous impunity and refusing to hold itself accountable for its actions when it’s forced to admit that it actually behaved badly.
I.e., most of us here are Americans, and the certainly loudest critics are Americans. We’re part of the American polity, so we have more of a stake in (and more responsibility for) America’s behavior than that of other nations. So even if the US isn’t the worst of the worst, we’re perfectly justified in focusing our ire on its malfeasance, and dismissing cries of “NABA, NABA, NABA!” as beside the point.
If you will, the view of other nations on war crimes need not be considered, because we fall short by the standard we ourselves espouse. If we don’t care about that standard, we damned well should not be endorsing it and using it as a bludgeon to push our preferred foreign policies upon others. And if we do care about that standard, we should hold ourselves to it in the manner that we so frequently and piously pat ourselves on the back for doing (even if we don’t).
I wonder if someone could supply some broader view on countries and their war crimes or other failures to behave properly.
wj, that somewhat misses the point of frustration from the criticizing side. The issue isn’t that the US was the worst of the worst, or suchlike, it’s that we’re Americans, and we routinely praise ourself about our fundamental goodness, or dismiss any atrocities we (or our clients) might commit as inherently more moral than those of others, or forgivable because they were done with right intent (which can be inferred from the fact that the US supported their commission, natch). It’s not that the US is the worst of the worst, and refuses to admit it; it’s that the US isn’t a faultless saint, refuses to admit it, and uses this claim as a justification for both acting with callous impunity and refusing to hold itself accountable for its actions when it’s forced to admit that it actually behaved badly.
I.e., most of us here are Americans, and the certainly loudest critics are Americans. We’re part of the American polity, so we have more of a stake in (and more responsibility for) America’s behavior than that of other nations. So even if the US isn’t the worst of the worst, we’re perfectly justified in focusing our ire on its malfeasance, and dismissing cries of “NABA, NABA, NABA!” as beside the point.
If you will, the view of other nations on war crimes need not be considered, because we fall short by the standard we ourselves espouse. If we don’t care about that standard, we damned well should not be endorsing it and using it as a bludgeon to push our preferred foreign policies upon others. And if we do care about that standard, we should hold ourselves to it in the manner that we so frequently and piously pat ourselves on the back for doing (even if we don’t).
I wonder if someone could supply some broader view on countries and their war crimes or other failures to behave properly.
wj, that somewhat misses the point of frustration from the criticizing side. The issue isn’t that the US was the worst of the worst, or suchlike, it’s that we’re Americans, and we routinely praise ourself about our fundamental goodness, or dismiss any atrocities we (or our clients) might commit as inherently more moral than those of others, or forgivable because they were done with right intent (which can be inferred from the fact that the US supported their commission, natch). It’s not that the US is the worst of the worst, and refuses to admit it; it’s that the US isn’t a faultless saint, refuses to admit it, and uses this claim as a justification for both acting with callous impunity and refusing to hold itself accountable for its actions when it’s forced to admit that it actually behaved badly.
I.e., most of us here are Americans, and the certainly loudest critics are Americans. We’re part of the American polity, so we have more of a stake in (and more responsibility for) America’s behavior than that of other nations. So even if the US isn’t the worst of the worst, we’re perfectly justified in focusing our ire on its malfeasance, and dismissing cries of “NABA, NABA, NABA!” as beside the point.
If you will, the view of other nations on war crimes need not be considered, because we fall short by the standard we ourselves espouse. If we don’t care about that standard, we damned well should not be endorsing it and using it as a bludgeon to push our preferred foreign policies upon others. And if we do care about that standard, we should hold ourselves to it in the manner that we so frequently and piously pat ourselves on the back for doing (even if we don’t).
Clinton has at various times accepted responsibility for that decision, and at other times said that she did not make the decision. Those statements may or may not be consistent with each other, depending on how you read things like ‘take full responsibility’ when Very Important People say them.
This is actually a pretty common situation. The executive is responsible for what the people working for him do. But he usually was not the one making the day-to-day decisions that caused things to happen — for better or for worse. He gets the credit for what they do when things go well; he gets the blame when they do not. Neither one being, in the majority of cases, deserved.
I think the rationale behind this is that the executive is responsible for picking the people who make the decisions. (Or the people who pick the people, etc.) Nobody can successfully micro-manage a large organization to the point where he signs off on every decision. But if the executive picks the wrong people, or the ones he picks make bad decisions, he is still responsible for what they do.** Even though he did not, personally, make the bad decisions in question.
** Things get fuzzy when he inherits a large organization and can’t approve or replace all those who are working for him.
Clinton has at various times accepted responsibility for that decision, and at other times said that she did not make the decision. Those statements may or may not be consistent with each other, depending on how you read things like ‘take full responsibility’ when Very Important People say them.
This is actually a pretty common situation. The executive is responsible for what the people working for him do. But he usually was not the one making the day-to-day decisions that caused things to happen — for better or for worse. He gets the credit for what they do when things go well; he gets the blame when they do not. Neither one being, in the majority of cases, deserved.
I think the rationale behind this is that the executive is responsible for picking the people who make the decisions. (Or the people who pick the people, etc.) Nobody can successfully micro-manage a large organization to the point where he signs off on every decision. But if the executive picks the wrong people, or the ones he picks make bad decisions, he is still responsible for what they do.** Even though he did not, personally, make the bad decisions in question.
** Things get fuzzy when he inherits a large organization and can’t approve or replace all those who are working for him.
Clinton has at various times accepted responsibility for that decision, and at other times said that she did not make the decision. Those statements may or may not be consistent with each other, depending on how you read things like ‘take full responsibility’ when Very Important People say them.
This is actually a pretty common situation. The executive is responsible for what the people working for him do. But he usually was not the one making the day-to-day decisions that caused things to happen — for better or for worse. He gets the credit for what they do when things go well; he gets the blame when they do not. Neither one being, in the majority of cases, deserved.
I think the rationale behind this is that the executive is responsible for picking the people who make the decisions. (Or the people who pick the people, etc.) Nobody can successfully micro-manage a large organization to the point where he signs off on every decision. But if the executive picks the wrong people, or the ones he picks make bad decisions, he is still responsible for what they do.** Even though he did not, personally, make the bad decisions in question.
** Things get fuzzy when he inherits a large organization and can’t approve or replace all those who are working for him.
NV, I don’t have a problem with holding ourselves to a higher standard. Indeed, I think that we should.
But I don’t think we should lose track of the fact we are not uniquely horrible. And, too often, those who might merely be “holding us to a higher standard” let their rhetoric devolve into “we are the worst ever!!!” Which, in addition to being inaccurate, is a great way to drive away people who might agree to the “higher standard” view, but have a clear idea of that the general standard actually is.
In short, things can get counter-productive very quickly. As we have seen here.
NV, I don’t have a problem with holding ourselves to a higher standard. Indeed, I think that we should.
But I don’t think we should lose track of the fact we are not uniquely horrible. And, too often, those who might merely be “holding us to a higher standard” let their rhetoric devolve into “we are the worst ever!!!” Which, in addition to being inaccurate, is a great way to drive away people who might agree to the “higher standard” view, but have a clear idea of that the general standard actually is.
In short, things can get counter-productive very quickly. As we have seen here.
NV, I don’t have a problem with holding ourselves to a higher standard. Indeed, I think that we should.
But I don’t think we should lose track of the fact we are not uniquely horrible. And, too often, those who might merely be “holding us to a higher standard” let their rhetoric devolve into “we are the worst ever!!!” Which, in addition to being inaccurate, is a great way to drive away people who might agree to the “higher standard” view, but have a clear idea of that the general standard actually is.
In short, things can get counter-productive very quickly. As we have seen here.
The issue, though, is that it’s not “hold ourselves to a higher standard” – it’s “be consistent in the standards we hold nations to, including ourselves”, which is a very different beast, and isn’t just looking at us in particular – it also looks at our clients and allies who enjoy more – shall we say – flexible and understanding moral judgements than those states who are less useful to us.
Trying to reduce calls for moral consistency to hyperbolic denouncements of the US as the worst EVAR is no more accurate than those selfsame denouncements would be, and equating the two is yet another way to achieve a highly counter-productive conversation.
The issue, though, is that it’s not “hold ourselves to a higher standard” – it’s “be consistent in the standards we hold nations to, including ourselves”, which is a very different beast, and isn’t just looking at us in particular – it also looks at our clients and allies who enjoy more – shall we say – flexible and understanding moral judgements than those states who are less useful to us.
Trying to reduce calls for moral consistency to hyperbolic denouncements of the US as the worst EVAR is no more accurate than those selfsame denouncements would be, and equating the two is yet another way to achieve a highly counter-productive conversation.
The issue, though, is that it’s not “hold ourselves to a higher standard” – it’s “be consistent in the standards we hold nations to, including ourselves”, which is a very different beast, and isn’t just looking at us in particular – it also looks at our clients and allies who enjoy more – shall we say – flexible and understanding moral judgements than those states who are less useful to us.
Trying to reduce calls for moral consistency to hyperbolic denouncements of the US as the worst EVAR is no more accurate than those selfsame denouncements would be, and equating the two is yet another way to achieve a highly counter-productive conversation.
I would say that our track record over the last 300 years is not so bad, at least in comparison, assuming you are not black, American Indian, Mexican, Fillipino, or any of a variety of flavors of South American.
I would say that our track record over the last 300 years is not so bad, at least in comparison, assuming you are not black, American Indian, Mexican, Fillipino, or any of a variety of flavors of South American.
I would say that our track record over the last 300 years is not so bad, at least in comparison, assuming you are not black, American Indian, Mexican, Fillipino, or any of a variety of flavors of South American.
without pointing a finger at anyone here, one reason conversations like this turn into accusations that someone thinks the US is “the worst EVAR” is that, despite wj’s assertion that the US or the executive gets the credit for what they do when things go well, it doesn’t and he doesn’t.
when was the last time a thread here was devoted to something the US has done right or something that Obama did right?
never?
but, there is a lot of talk about what Obama or the US does wrong. every thread, probably. it’s constant.
and that makes claims that we’re just trying to get people to do better ring hollow. because it never sounds like we give a fnck what the US does right. it sounds like what we only want to complain.
$0.02
without pointing a finger at anyone here, one reason conversations like this turn into accusations that someone thinks the US is “the worst EVAR” is that, despite wj’s assertion that the US or the executive gets the credit for what they do when things go well, it doesn’t and he doesn’t.
when was the last time a thread here was devoted to something the US has done right or something that Obama did right?
never?
but, there is a lot of talk about what Obama or the US does wrong. every thread, probably. it’s constant.
and that makes claims that we’re just trying to get people to do better ring hollow. because it never sounds like we give a fnck what the US does right. it sounds like what we only want to complain.
$0.02
without pointing a finger at anyone here, one reason conversations like this turn into accusations that someone thinks the US is “the worst EVAR” is that, despite wj’s assertion that the US or the executive gets the credit for what they do when things go well, it doesn’t and he doesn’t.
when was the last time a thread here was devoted to something the US has done right or something that Obama did right?
never?
but, there is a lot of talk about what Obama or the US does wrong. every thread, probably. it’s constant.
and that makes claims that we’re just trying to get people to do better ring hollow. because it never sounds like we give a fnck what the US does right. it sounds like what we only want to complain.
$0.02
I was thinking primarily of how a President gets credit for how well the economy does. Especially around election time. The fact is, most of the time the government has marginal impacts on the economy, and those tend to have relatively long reaction times. Not always, but usually.
But the same tends to be true of business executives as well. Especially the ones who move around a lot. Someone comes in as the new EVP of sales, and the sales strategy of his predecessor starts generating more business, yet he gets the credit. Or the new EVP for IT arrives just as a decade of outsourcing starts to bite, and the systems crash a lot. He gets the blame, even though he didn’t make the decisions.
In the case of politicians, the pundits may make the destinction. But the voters seem to vote on “how is the economy going today?” rather than on “are this guy’s policies going to make things better or worse?”
I was thinking primarily of how a President gets credit for how well the economy does. Especially around election time. The fact is, most of the time the government has marginal impacts on the economy, and those tend to have relatively long reaction times. Not always, but usually.
But the same tends to be true of business executives as well. Especially the ones who move around a lot. Someone comes in as the new EVP of sales, and the sales strategy of his predecessor starts generating more business, yet he gets the credit. Or the new EVP for IT arrives just as a decade of outsourcing starts to bite, and the systems crash a lot. He gets the blame, even though he didn’t make the decisions.
In the case of politicians, the pundits may make the destinction. But the voters seem to vote on “how is the economy going today?” rather than on “are this guy’s policies going to make things better or worse?”
I was thinking primarily of how a President gets credit for how well the economy does. Especially around election time. The fact is, most of the time the government has marginal impacts on the economy, and those tend to have relatively long reaction times. Not always, but usually.
But the same tends to be true of business executives as well. Especially the ones who move around a lot. Someone comes in as the new EVP of sales, and the sales strategy of his predecessor starts generating more business, yet he gets the credit. Or the new EVP for IT arrives just as a decade of outsourcing starts to bite, and the systems crash a lot. He gets the blame, even though he didn’t make the decisions.
In the case of politicians, the pundits may make the destinction. But the voters seem to vote on “how is the economy going today?” rather than on “are this guy’s policies going to make things better or worse?”
because it never sounds like we give a fnck what the US does right. it sounds like what we only want to complain.
I’d say that’s at least in part because those of us in the US swim in a soup of nationalistic or even jingoistic cheerleading (though the most overtly self-congratulatory patriots among us seem to despise Obama). Given that parenthetical, the closest we probably get to praising Obama and other Democrats (see Hillary Clinton above) is in defending them against ridiculous attacks from rabid partisans.
FWIW, I think Obama may well be the best president in my lifetime.
because it never sounds like we give a fnck what the US does right. it sounds like what we only want to complain.
I’d say that’s at least in part because those of us in the US swim in a soup of nationalistic or even jingoistic cheerleading (though the most overtly self-congratulatory patriots among us seem to despise Obama). Given that parenthetical, the closest we probably get to praising Obama and other Democrats (see Hillary Clinton above) is in defending them against ridiculous attacks from rabid partisans.
FWIW, I think Obama may well be the best president in my lifetime.
because it never sounds like we give a fnck what the US does right. it sounds like what we only want to complain.
I’d say that’s at least in part because those of us in the US swim in a soup of nationalistic or even jingoistic cheerleading (though the most overtly self-congratulatory patriots among us seem to despise Obama). Given that parenthetical, the closest we probably get to praising Obama and other Democrats (see Hillary Clinton above) is in defending them against ridiculous attacks from rabid partisans.
FWIW, I think Obama may well be the best president in my lifetime.
On re-reading, I should probably clarify that “among us” means Americans in general, not people who comment on this blog.
On re-reading, I should probably clarify that “among us” means Americans in general, not people who comment on this blog.
On re-reading, I should probably clarify that “among us” means Americans in general, not people who comment on this blog.
Pointing out that what most claim we are vs. what we’ve actually done or are doing is not the same as an assertion of “worst ever”. To say that critics of US foreign policy assert this is simply a transparent rhetorical ploy. (I could go on about how real (marxists)leftist don’t make that claim, but I would get beat about the head by some Scotsman.)
However, there are similarities. They should be taken seriously, for the could well portend a not very good future.
Pointing out that what most claim we are vs. what we’ve actually done or are doing is not the same as an assertion of “worst ever”. To say that critics of US foreign policy assert this is simply a transparent rhetorical ploy. (I could go on about how real (marxists)leftist don’t make that claim, but I would get beat about the head by some Scotsman.)
However, there are similarities. They should be taken seriously, for the could well portend a not very good future.
Pointing out that what most claim we are vs. what we’ve actually done or are doing is not the same as an assertion of “worst ever”. To say that critics of US foreign policy assert this is simply a transparent rhetorical ploy. (I could go on about how real (marxists)leftist don’t make that claim, but I would get beat about the head by some Scotsman.)
However, there are similarities. They should be taken seriously, for the could well portend a not very good future.
Concerning Benghazi, I’d say a lot went wrong there that was not inevitable. But those making the most fuzz about it are those that have the least right to complain, in particular those congresscritters that refused requests for increased embassy security before the event (not limited to Libya).
Concerning Benghazi, I’d say a lot went wrong there that was not inevitable. But those making the most fuzz about it are those that have the least right to complain, in particular those congresscritters that refused requests for increased embassy security before the event (not limited to Libya).
Concerning Benghazi, I’d say a lot went wrong there that was not inevitable. But those making the most fuzz about it are those that have the least right to complain, in particular those congresscritters that refused requests for increased embassy security before the event (not limited to Libya).
Sapient, I grant that wanting power can be a legitimate career goal– somebody has to do it and Samantha Power is probably better than most.
But for that very reason she’s not the one to read if you want to understand US policy and genocide. The sort of person you need to write such a book would be academics or investigative journalists, people who don’t have to care who they might offend. I think it would be valuable to have someone go through all the policy memos and discussions that lay behind the decision to support Indonesia in East Timor. Since Holbrooke was involved, Power was not the person to write that book.
On wj’s point, I don’t think we are the worst — you can, of course, find people like that on the far left but it ain’t everyone. My pov was expressed by NV above. Also, if you do browse through human rights reports it doesn’t escape one’s notice that other people are doing bad things. Currently the US trails quite a few bad actors as best I can tell.
On cleek’s point, I think Obama has been a good though not great President, though given the Republian opposition I doubt anyone could have done much better. One thing sapient doesn’t get– even if I truly believed Obama always has the best intentions, I still think we should criticize his actions. He might secretly despise how our noble allies bomb civilians ( in both Gaza and Yemen), but if his Administration hands them the weapons and gives them support, he ought to receive criticism.
Sapient, I grant that wanting power can be a legitimate career goal– somebody has to do it and Samantha Power is probably better than most.
But for that very reason she’s not the one to read if you want to understand US policy and genocide. The sort of person you need to write such a book would be academics or investigative journalists, people who don’t have to care who they might offend. I think it would be valuable to have someone go through all the policy memos and discussions that lay behind the decision to support Indonesia in East Timor. Since Holbrooke was involved, Power was not the person to write that book.
On wj’s point, I don’t think we are the worst — you can, of course, find people like that on the far left but it ain’t everyone. My pov was expressed by NV above. Also, if you do browse through human rights reports it doesn’t escape one’s notice that other people are doing bad things. Currently the US trails quite a few bad actors as best I can tell.
On cleek’s point, I think Obama has been a good though not great President, though given the Republian opposition I doubt anyone could have done much better. One thing sapient doesn’t get– even if I truly believed Obama always has the best intentions, I still think we should criticize his actions. He might secretly despise how our noble allies bomb civilians ( in both Gaza and Yemen), but if his Administration hands them the weapons and gives them support, he ought to receive criticism.
Sapient, I grant that wanting power can be a legitimate career goal– somebody has to do it and Samantha Power is probably better than most.
But for that very reason she’s not the one to read if you want to understand US policy and genocide. The sort of person you need to write such a book would be academics or investigative journalists, people who don’t have to care who they might offend. I think it would be valuable to have someone go through all the policy memos and discussions that lay behind the decision to support Indonesia in East Timor. Since Holbrooke was involved, Power was not the person to write that book.
On wj’s point, I don’t think we are the worst — you can, of course, find people like that on the far left but it ain’t everyone. My pov was expressed by NV above. Also, if you do browse through human rights reports it doesn’t escape one’s notice that other people are doing bad things. Currently the US trails quite a few bad actors as best I can tell.
On cleek’s point, I think Obama has been a good though not great President, though given the Republian opposition I doubt anyone could have done much better. One thing sapient doesn’t get– even if I truly believed Obama always has the best intentions, I still think we should criticize his actions. He might secretly despise how our noble allies bomb civilians ( in both Gaza and Yemen), but if his Administration hands them the weapons and gives them support, he ought to receive criticism.
I was reading, and in some cases rereading this thread. Some observations:
Obviously Dean Rusk had probity and good sense. So he had a “lot” I take it.
I’m a latish baby boomer, and I want to live for a long time yet, but the world will be better off when we baby boomers (especially the late ones) are all dead, and history can have its way with the Vietnam era. I’m starting to believe strongly that Korea and Vietnam (and the cold war generally) were so closely connected to WWII that baby boomers can’t possibly have an objective view of what went on then, basically because they didn’t experience the trauma of WWII. Not that what happened in Vietnam was a good thing, and especially when Richard Nixon more than doubled the deaths so that he could be elected (read One Man Against the World, by Tim Weiner). Robert McNamara tried to explain it (and not justify it, to his enormous credit).
Dean Rusk was fighting the cold war. We don’t care about nukes anymore, although we should more than ever. But their whole world was paranoia that complete destruction would happen, as it almost had happened to them. I’m over judging WWII survivors. (And,everyone who lived, much less fought, was a survivor considering the casualties. Sorry to put this in here again: https://vimeo.com/128373915. We basically were born in the aftermath of Genghis Khan, and our parents lived there.)
And yes, there are people with a “lot” of foreign policy chops. They may not do the right thing, but they have to face thorns and obstacles that blogavators don’t. We should definitely vote for the people we prefer, but the foreign policy chops of the folks we like – yes, those jobs are hard, and those people deserve them.
Next issue: Donald Johnson, you should review Samantha Power’s book, get it published, and then get over your animosity. Samantha Power actually cares about genocide, even though her book wasn’t expansive enough for you, in that it didn’t cover your favorite atrocity, East Timor. [Maybe she wanted to get on with something else besides writing a book. If you’ve ever written a book, you might know that a subject as broad as “genocide” could suck a person in for a lifetime.] The reason I asked about your profession is because your remarks make you sound like a disappointed former fellow grad student. Sorry, but it’s the vibe I get.
Generally, I agree that United States foreign policy isn’t ideal. Ideally, we wouldn’t knee-jerk support Israel in its fascist attitude towards Palestinians. Ideally, we’d completely avoid military involvement in the Middle East because the Middle East would be a peaceful place. Ideally, we’d be friendly folks who, when we travel abroad, would be our own nation’s ambassadors. And everyone would welcome us, because we’re tolerant and interested and respectful.
Ideally, we’d welcome refugees. We’d take in the tired, poor and hungry, and our citizens would be cared for so that they wouldn’t fall into those categories. Ideally, we wouldn’t be racists.
The world isn’t an ideal place. We have to think of ways to make it so. And we have to give our support to those who have worked very hard to be in a position to help it come about.
I was reading, and in some cases rereading this thread. Some observations:
Obviously Dean Rusk had probity and good sense. So he had a “lot” I take it.
I’m a latish baby boomer, and I want to live for a long time yet, but the world will be better off when we baby boomers (especially the late ones) are all dead, and history can have its way with the Vietnam era. I’m starting to believe strongly that Korea and Vietnam (and the cold war generally) were so closely connected to WWII that baby boomers can’t possibly have an objective view of what went on then, basically because they didn’t experience the trauma of WWII. Not that what happened in Vietnam was a good thing, and especially when Richard Nixon more than doubled the deaths so that he could be elected (read One Man Against the World, by Tim Weiner). Robert McNamara tried to explain it (and not justify it, to his enormous credit).
Dean Rusk was fighting the cold war. We don’t care about nukes anymore, although we should more than ever. But their whole world was paranoia that complete destruction would happen, as it almost had happened to them. I’m over judging WWII survivors. (And,everyone who lived, much less fought, was a survivor considering the casualties. Sorry to put this in here again: https://vimeo.com/128373915. We basically were born in the aftermath of Genghis Khan, and our parents lived there.)
And yes, there are people with a “lot” of foreign policy chops. They may not do the right thing, but they have to face thorns and obstacles that blogavators don’t. We should definitely vote for the people we prefer, but the foreign policy chops of the folks we like – yes, those jobs are hard, and those people deserve them.
Next issue: Donald Johnson, you should review Samantha Power’s book, get it published, and then get over your animosity. Samantha Power actually cares about genocide, even though her book wasn’t expansive enough for you, in that it didn’t cover your favorite atrocity, East Timor. [Maybe she wanted to get on with something else besides writing a book. If you’ve ever written a book, you might know that a subject as broad as “genocide” could suck a person in for a lifetime.] The reason I asked about your profession is because your remarks make you sound like a disappointed former fellow grad student. Sorry, but it’s the vibe I get.
Generally, I agree that United States foreign policy isn’t ideal. Ideally, we wouldn’t knee-jerk support Israel in its fascist attitude towards Palestinians. Ideally, we’d completely avoid military involvement in the Middle East because the Middle East would be a peaceful place. Ideally, we’d be friendly folks who, when we travel abroad, would be our own nation’s ambassadors. And everyone would welcome us, because we’re tolerant and interested and respectful.
Ideally, we’d welcome refugees. We’d take in the tired, poor and hungry, and our citizens would be cared for so that they wouldn’t fall into those categories. Ideally, we wouldn’t be racists.
The world isn’t an ideal place. We have to think of ways to make it so. And we have to give our support to those who have worked very hard to be in a position to help it come about.
I was reading, and in some cases rereading this thread. Some observations:
Obviously Dean Rusk had probity and good sense. So he had a “lot” I take it.
I’m a latish baby boomer, and I want to live for a long time yet, but the world will be better off when we baby boomers (especially the late ones) are all dead, and history can have its way with the Vietnam era. I’m starting to believe strongly that Korea and Vietnam (and the cold war generally) were so closely connected to WWII that baby boomers can’t possibly have an objective view of what went on then, basically because they didn’t experience the trauma of WWII. Not that what happened in Vietnam was a good thing, and especially when Richard Nixon more than doubled the deaths so that he could be elected (read One Man Against the World, by Tim Weiner). Robert McNamara tried to explain it (and not justify it, to his enormous credit).
Dean Rusk was fighting the cold war. We don’t care about nukes anymore, although we should more than ever. But their whole world was paranoia that complete destruction would happen, as it almost had happened to them. I’m over judging WWII survivors. (And,everyone who lived, much less fought, was a survivor considering the casualties. Sorry to put this in here again: https://vimeo.com/128373915. We basically were born in the aftermath of Genghis Khan, and our parents lived there.)
And yes, there are people with a “lot” of foreign policy chops. They may not do the right thing, but they have to face thorns and obstacles that blogavators don’t. We should definitely vote for the people we prefer, but the foreign policy chops of the folks we like – yes, those jobs are hard, and those people deserve them.
Next issue: Donald Johnson, you should review Samantha Power’s book, get it published, and then get over your animosity. Samantha Power actually cares about genocide, even though her book wasn’t expansive enough for you, in that it didn’t cover your favorite atrocity, East Timor. [Maybe she wanted to get on with something else besides writing a book. If you’ve ever written a book, you might know that a subject as broad as “genocide” could suck a person in for a lifetime.] The reason I asked about your profession is because your remarks make you sound like a disappointed former fellow grad student. Sorry, but it’s the vibe I get.
Generally, I agree that United States foreign policy isn’t ideal. Ideally, we wouldn’t knee-jerk support Israel in its fascist attitude towards Palestinians. Ideally, we’d completely avoid military involvement in the Middle East because the Middle East would be a peaceful place. Ideally, we’d be friendly folks who, when we travel abroad, would be our own nation’s ambassadors. And everyone would welcome us, because we’re tolerant and interested and respectful.
Ideally, we’d welcome refugees. We’d take in the tired, poor and hungry, and our citizens would be cared for so that they wouldn’t fall into those categories. Ideally, we wouldn’t be racists.
The world isn’t an ideal place. We have to think of ways to make it so. And we have to give our support to those who have worked very hard to be in a position to help it come about.
If we do get major action on climate change, maybe Obama will be seen as a great President. I meant to read up on the climate summit or whatever it was recently, but never got around to it. I noticed some activists saying it wasn’t enough but was a big step in the right direction.
If we do get major action on climate change, maybe Obama will be seen as a great President. I meant to read up on the climate summit or whatever it was recently, but never got around to it. I noticed some activists saying it wasn’t enough but was a big step in the right direction.
If we do get major action on climate change, maybe Obama will be seen as a great President. I meant to read up on the climate summit or whatever it was recently, but never got around to it. I noticed some activists saying it wasn’t enough but was a big step in the right direction.
DJ, what you don’t get is that criticism isn’t the only vital feedback.
DJ, what you don’t get is that criticism isn’t the only vital feedback.
DJ, what you don’t get is that criticism isn’t the only vital feedback.
And, by the way, DJ, I haven’t read Samantha Powers’s book. I’ve read about her, and have read about her views on genocide, and know about her from journalists’ reports. I think she’s smart and competent. She’s a woman who comes from a less-than-privileged background. She has two kids. She seems great, and by all I can tell, she is.
And, by the way, DJ, I haven’t read Samantha Powers’s book. I’ve read about her, and have read about her views on genocide, and know about her from journalists’ reports. I think she’s smart and competent. She’s a woman who comes from a less-than-privileged background. She has two kids. She seems great, and by all I can tell, she is.
And, by the way, DJ, I haven’t read Samantha Powers’s book. I’ve read about her, and have read about her views on genocide, and know about her from journalists’ reports. I think she’s smart and competent. She’s a woman who comes from a less-than-privileged background. She has two kids. She seems great, and by all I can tell, she is.
Oh, and finally, Donald, I have deep respect for you, but think that you worry bout the wrong things, to quote Kanye West.
Oh, and finally, Donald, I have deep respect for you, but think that you worry bout the wrong things, to quote Kanye West.
Oh, and finally, Donald, I have deep respect for you, but think that you worry bout the wrong things, to quote Kanye West.
And we have to give our support to those who have worked very hard to be in a position to help it come about.
The Bush administration was full of people who worked very hard to be in a position to make the world “better”, per their vision thereof. You wanna go full Godwin? The Nazi party was full of people who worked very hard – and who had great understanding of foreign policy – but that doesn’t mean they deserved support. For all your prefacing, you’re just circling back to “Trust them, without question, because they’re Good People who know more about important things than a layperson like you ever could.” Zeal shows that someone is dedicated, nothing more. Bad actors can be just as zealous as good actors. “They’ve worked very hard” says not one solitary thing about their moral worth.
And we have to give our support to those who have worked very hard to be in a position to help it come about.
The Bush administration was full of people who worked very hard to be in a position to make the world “better”, per their vision thereof. You wanna go full Godwin? The Nazi party was full of people who worked very hard – and who had great understanding of foreign policy – but that doesn’t mean they deserved support. For all your prefacing, you’re just circling back to “Trust them, without question, because they’re Good People who know more about important things than a layperson like you ever could.” Zeal shows that someone is dedicated, nothing more. Bad actors can be just as zealous as good actors. “They’ve worked very hard” says not one solitary thing about their moral worth.
And we have to give our support to those who have worked very hard to be in a position to help it come about.
The Bush administration was full of people who worked very hard to be in a position to make the world “better”, per their vision thereof. You wanna go full Godwin? The Nazi party was full of people who worked very hard – and who had great understanding of foreign policy – but that doesn’t mean they deserved support. For all your prefacing, you’re just circling back to “Trust them, without question, because they’re Good People who know more about important things than a layperson like you ever could.” Zeal shows that someone is dedicated, nothing more. Bad actors can be just as zealous as good actors. “They’ve worked very hard” says not one solitary thing about their moral worth.
Sapient, it would be more useful if you wouldn’t trivialize my point– East Timor and others are the atrocities Power didn’t cover because the US was complicit in damning ways. The same was true with Reagan and various mass murderers in Central America and Africa ( one of which was considered genocide). She made an obvious political choice to focus on our sins of omission. The Holbrookes and Kissinger’s of the world are happy to argue on that level.
The harm this does is that it furthers the myth of American exceptionalism. I followed the discussion of her book back then ( and my 3 star review is on Amazon– says what I say here) and it followed the parameters of the foreign policy elite– it was Wilsonian idealists ( we should intervene) vs realists ( our interests should determine what we do) but missing from the discussion would be the sorts of rude questions you would get from a Seymour Hersh or Greg Grandin or Joseph Nevins.
Sapient, it would be more useful if you wouldn’t trivialize my point– East Timor and others are the atrocities Power didn’t cover because the US was complicit in damning ways. The same was true with Reagan and various mass murderers in Central America and Africa ( one of which was considered genocide). She made an obvious political choice to focus on our sins of omission. The Holbrookes and Kissinger’s of the world are happy to argue on that level.
The harm this does is that it furthers the myth of American exceptionalism. I followed the discussion of her book back then ( and my 3 star review is on Amazon– says what I say here) and it followed the parameters of the foreign policy elite– it was Wilsonian idealists ( we should intervene) vs realists ( our interests should determine what we do) but missing from the discussion would be the sorts of rude questions you would get from a Seymour Hersh or Greg Grandin or Joseph Nevins.
Sapient, it would be more useful if you wouldn’t trivialize my point– East Timor and others are the atrocities Power didn’t cover because the US was complicit in damning ways. The same was true with Reagan and various mass murderers in Central America and Africa ( one of which was considered genocide). She made an obvious political choice to focus on our sins of omission. The Holbrookes and Kissinger’s of the world are happy to argue on that level.
The harm this does is that it furthers the myth of American exceptionalism. I followed the discussion of her book back then ( and my 3 star review is on Amazon– says what I say here) and it followed the parameters of the foreign policy elite– it was Wilsonian idealists ( we should intervene) vs realists ( our interests should determine what we do) but missing from the discussion would be the sorts of rude questions you would get from a Seymour Hersh or Greg Grandin or Joseph Nevins.
DJ, what you don’t get is that criticism isn’t the only vital feedback.
sapient, what you don’t get is that applause isn’t the only vital feedback.
Or perhaps none of us have cartoonishly simple beliefs. Is it so hard to assume good faith, comprehension, and rationality on the part of those who disagree with you?
DJ, what you don’t get is that criticism isn’t the only vital feedback.
sapient, what you don’t get is that applause isn’t the only vital feedback.
Or perhaps none of us have cartoonishly simple beliefs. Is it so hard to assume good faith, comprehension, and rationality on the part of those who disagree with you?
DJ, what you don’t get is that criticism isn’t the only vital feedback.
sapient, what you don’t get is that applause isn’t the only vital feedback.
Or perhaps none of us have cartoonishly simple beliefs. Is it so hard to assume good faith, comprehension, and rationality on the part of those who disagree with you?
Is it so hard to assume good faith, comprehension, and rationality on the part of those who disagree with you?
I actually do assume those things. But I get angry. A world problem in microcosm.
Is it so hard to assume good faith, comprehension, and rationality on the part of those who disagree with you?
I actually do assume those things. But I get angry. A world problem in microcosm.
Is it so hard to assume good faith, comprehension, and rationality on the part of those who disagree with you?
I actually do assume those things. But I get angry. A world problem in microcosm.
Okay, working backwards, because didn’t see several comments:
The Bush administration was full of people who worked very hard to be in a position to make the world “better”, per their vision thereof.
That’s true. But that’s where democracy comes in. I think that Wolfowitz was very smart. He had a vision. His boss had a vision. I don’t think that he was inherently evil. But his policy vision was extremely evil, and people were wrong to vote for his boss. Wolfowitz deserves whatever credit one gets for knowledge and achievement. He doesn’t deserve my support because his administration supported torturing prisoners (as the first evil among many). Same with Condi.
Samantha Power didn’t go to work for Bush. She had an allegiance to policies that I support.
So, yes, I believe in the electoral process (to the extent that we still have it, and I agree that it need to be salvaged). Obama has done a good job.
Okay, working backwards, because didn’t see several comments:
The Bush administration was full of people who worked very hard to be in a position to make the world “better”, per their vision thereof.
That’s true. But that’s where democracy comes in. I think that Wolfowitz was very smart. He had a vision. His boss had a vision. I don’t think that he was inherently evil. But his policy vision was extremely evil, and people were wrong to vote for his boss. Wolfowitz deserves whatever credit one gets for knowledge and achievement. He doesn’t deserve my support because his administration supported torturing prisoners (as the first evil among many). Same with Condi.
Samantha Power didn’t go to work for Bush. She had an allegiance to policies that I support.
So, yes, I believe in the electoral process (to the extent that we still have it, and I agree that it need to be salvaged). Obama has done a good job.
Okay, working backwards, because didn’t see several comments:
The Bush administration was full of people who worked very hard to be in a position to make the world “better”, per their vision thereof.
That’s true. But that’s where democracy comes in. I think that Wolfowitz was very smart. He had a vision. His boss had a vision. I don’t think that he was inherently evil. But his policy vision was extremely evil, and people were wrong to vote for his boss. Wolfowitz deserves whatever credit one gets for knowledge and achievement. He doesn’t deserve my support because his administration supported torturing prisoners (as the first evil among many). Same with Condi.
Samantha Power didn’t go to work for Bush. She had an allegiance to policies that I support.
So, yes, I believe in the electoral process (to the extent that we still have it, and I agree that it need to be salvaged). Obama has done a good job.
Donald: the US was complicit in damning ways [in East Timor]
Again, the post-WWII, cold war period – we did a lot for many reasons. We were scared s*&tless of “Communists”, and the bomb. So I’ve already commented on that. And we’re still working all of that through – maybe the Middle East is still that.
We should have been ideal. We aren’t. We need to do the best we can, and support the best we have. We don’t have, among our multiple choice answers , “Perfect”.
Donald: the US was complicit in damning ways [in East Timor]
Again, the post-WWII, cold war period – we did a lot for many reasons. We were scared s*&tless of “Communists”, and the bomb. So I’ve already commented on that. And we’re still working all of that through – maybe the Middle East is still that.
We should have been ideal. We aren’t. We need to do the best we can, and support the best we have. We don’t have, among our multiple choice answers , “Perfect”.
Donald: the US was complicit in damning ways [in East Timor]
Again, the post-WWII, cold war period – we did a lot for many reasons. We were scared s*&tless of “Communists”, and the bomb. So I’ve already commented on that. And we’re still working all of that through – maybe the Middle East is still that.
We should have been ideal. We aren’t. We need to do the best we can, and support the best we have. We don’t have, among our multiple choice answers , “Perfect”.
That’s inadequate, I think. It can be used to justify anything. But I’m starting to bore myself here and have laundry to collect.
That’s inadequate, I think. It can be used to justify anything. But I’m starting to bore myself here and have laundry to collect.
That’s inadequate, I think. It can be used to justify anything. But I’m starting to bore myself here and have laundry to collect.
Donald, get your laundry. Too many ideas here to argue about. Thanks for mentioning climate. And, no, Paris wasn’t enough. But it was the best possible now.
Donald, get your laundry. Too many ideas here to argue about. Thanks for mentioning climate. And, no, Paris wasn’t enough. But it was the best possible now.
Donald, get your laundry. Too many ideas here to argue about. Thanks for mentioning climate. And, no, Paris wasn’t enough. But it was the best possible now.
Dean Rusk was fighting the cold war.
That’s no excuse. Our policy wrt Viet Nam was worse than a crime. It was a mistake (I’ve heard that somewhere). It ruined the legacy of some otherwise decent (Ike, Kennedy) and possibly great (LBJ) presidents.
Millions of innocent people needlessly died.
Regardless of intent or morality (subjects of endless arguments), the policy was dead wrong (fairly airtight case for that). Even on its own terms, those policies were a disaster.
As a boomer old enough to remember “duck and cover”, I was raised surrounded by the pervasive fear of the dreaded red menace and the fear of nuclear annihilation. I am well acquainted with the emotions engendered by The Bomb, etc.
But we as a nation had other options in the immediate post WWII era. We did not take them.
Therein lies the tragedy.
Dean Rusk was fighting the cold war.
That’s no excuse. Our policy wrt Viet Nam was worse than a crime. It was a mistake (I’ve heard that somewhere). It ruined the legacy of some otherwise decent (Ike, Kennedy) and possibly great (LBJ) presidents.
Millions of innocent people needlessly died.
Regardless of intent or morality (subjects of endless arguments), the policy was dead wrong (fairly airtight case for that). Even on its own terms, those policies were a disaster.
As a boomer old enough to remember “duck and cover”, I was raised surrounded by the pervasive fear of the dreaded red menace and the fear of nuclear annihilation. I am well acquainted with the emotions engendered by The Bomb, etc.
But we as a nation had other options in the immediate post WWII era. We did not take them.
Therein lies the tragedy.
Dean Rusk was fighting the cold war.
That’s no excuse. Our policy wrt Viet Nam was worse than a crime. It was a mistake (I’ve heard that somewhere). It ruined the legacy of some otherwise decent (Ike, Kennedy) and possibly great (LBJ) presidents.
Millions of innocent people needlessly died.
Regardless of intent or morality (subjects of endless arguments), the policy was dead wrong (fairly airtight case for that). Even on its own terms, those policies were a disaster.
As a boomer old enough to remember “duck and cover”, I was raised surrounded by the pervasive fear of the dreaded red menace and the fear of nuclear annihilation. I am well acquainted with the emotions engendered by The Bomb, etc.
But we as a nation had other options in the immediate post WWII era. We did not take them.
Therein lies the tragedy.
I think that there is a lot to be said for assuming, as a default, “good faith, comprehension, and rationality” on the part of those involved. That doesn’t mean it is always true. And it doesn’t mean thst it can’t go wrong anyway. But it is still the right place to start, until there is evidence to the contrary.
Similarly, when things do go wrong (in foreign policy as anywhere else) the default assumption should be failure of ability, rather than bad intentions. Again, that is not to say that there are not those with bad intentions. Nor that even good intentions and ability won’t sometimes go wrong. But the default assumption should still go that way.
It is all too easy, when things are less than ideal, to take the worst view of those involved. Sometimes that view will be justified. But to always take that view is to arrive at a very dark view of the universe. And I think we would all be well advised not to go there.
I think that there is a lot to be said for assuming, as a default, “good faith, comprehension, and rationality” on the part of those involved. That doesn’t mean it is always true. And it doesn’t mean thst it can’t go wrong anyway. But it is still the right place to start, until there is evidence to the contrary.
Similarly, when things do go wrong (in foreign policy as anywhere else) the default assumption should be failure of ability, rather than bad intentions. Again, that is not to say that there are not those with bad intentions. Nor that even good intentions and ability won’t sometimes go wrong. But the default assumption should still go that way.
It is all too easy, when things are less than ideal, to take the worst view of those involved. Sometimes that view will be justified. But to always take that view is to arrive at a very dark view of the universe. And I think we would all be well advised not to go there.
I think that there is a lot to be said for assuming, as a default, “good faith, comprehension, and rationality” on the part of those involved. That doesn’t mean it is always true. And it doesn’t mean thst it can’t go wrong anyway. But it is still the right place to start, until there is evidence to the contrary.
Similarly, when things do go wrong (in foreign policy as anywhere else) the default assumption should be failure of ability, rather than bad intentions. Again, that is not to say that there are not those with bad intentions. Nor that even good intentions and ability won’t sometimes go wrong. But the default assumption should still go that way.
It is all too easy, when things are less than ideal, to take the worst view of those involved. Sometimes that view will be justified. But to always take that view is to arrive at a very dark view of the universe. And I think we would all be well advised not to go there.
But we as a nation had other options in the immediate post WWII era. We did not take them.
I, too, remember “duck and cover” drills.
We could have done some things differently and better after WW II. For just one foreign policy example, when Ho Chi Minh asked for our support (to avoid China’s embrace) we could have said yes.
But we could also have done, and for most of history victors have done, things different and worse. We rebuilt (Western) Europe, including Italy and Germany which had been our opponents. Likewise Japan. Certainly we had reasons beyond altruism (anti-communism) for doing so. But it still was a nearly unprecedented response. (At least, if anyone has other examples, please share.)
But we as a nation had other options in the immediate post WWII era. We did not take them.
I, too, remember “duck and cover” drills.
We could have done some things differently and better after WW II. For just one foreign policy example, when Ho Chi Minh asked for our support (to avoid China’s embrace) we could have said yes.
But we could also have done, and for most of history victors have done, things different and worse. We rebuilt (Western) Europe, including Italy and Germany which had been our opponents. Likewise Japan. Certainly we had reasons beyond altruism (anti-communism) for doing so. But it still was a nearly unprecedented response. (At least, if anyone has other examples, please share.)
But we as a nation had other options in the immediate post WWII era. We did not take them.
I, too, remember “duck and cover” drills.
We could have done some things differently and better after WW II. For just one foreign policy example, when Ho Chi Minh asked for our support (to avoid China’s embrace) we could have said yes.
But we could also have done, and for most of history victors have done, things different and worse. We rebuilt (Western) Europe, including Italy and Germany which had been our opponents. Likewise Japan. Certainly we had reasons beyond altruism (anti-communism) for doing so. But it still was a nearly unprecedented response. (At least, if anyone has other examples, please share.)
The problem is that the default view that is taken, that our leaders are doing things for the best of motives, implies American exceptionalism unless we make this the default assumption for everyone. Assume that every leader of every group or country does things for the best of motives.
It’s better to assume that there may be multiple motives at work. And that most people probably do see themselves as having good intentions.
Also, I think public actions are the most important factor in how we should judge politicians I think that privately the Obama people were disgusted by some of Israel’s tactics in the 2014 Gaza war–Kerry was caught when he thought he was off camera by Fox News on Wallace’s show telling an aide that it was “a hell of a pinpoint operation” in a very sarcastic tone. Questioned by Wallace a few minutes later, he went immediately into a standard boilerplate speech about Israel’s right to defend itself. They do this in part because of domestic politics–Israel is a sacred cow for many people. And they continued to arm them during the war. So privately Kerry seemed to share some of the views of Human Rights Watch, but publicly he took a different tone.
The problem is that the default view that is taken, that our leaders are doing things for the best of motives, implies American exceptionalism unless we make this the default assumption for everyone. Assume that every leader of every group or country does things for the best of motives.
It’s better to assume that there may be multiple motives at work. And that most people probably do see themselves as having good intentions.
Also, I think public actions are the most important factor in how we should judge politicians I think that privately the Obama people were disgusted by some of Israel’s tactics in the 2014 Gaza war–Kerry was caught when he thought he was off camera by Fox News on Wallace’s show telling an aide that it was “a hell of a pinpoint operation” in a very sarcastic tone. Questioned by Wallace a few minutes later, he went immediately into a standard boilerplate speech about Israel’s right to defend itself. They do this in part because of domestic politics–Israel is a sacred cow for many people. And they continued to arm them during the war. So privately Kerry seemed to share some of the views of Human Rights Watch, but publicly he took a different tone.
The problem is that the default view that is taken, that our leaders are doing things for the best of motives, implies American exceptionalism unless we make this the default assumption for everyone. Assume that every leader of every group or country does things for the best of motives.
It’s better to assume that there may be multiple motives at work. And that most people probably do see themselves as having good intentions.
Also, I think public actions are the most important factor in how we should judge politicians I think that privately the Obama people were disgusted by some of Israel’s tactics in the 2014 Gaza war–Kerry was caught when he thought he was off camera by Fox News on Wallace’s show telling an aide that it was “a hell of a pinpoint operation” in a very sarcastic tone. Questioned by Wallace a few minutes later, he went immediately into a standard boilerplate speech about Israel’s right to defend itself. They do this in part because of domestic politics–Israel is a sacred cow for many people. And they continued to arm them during the war. So privately Kerry seemed to share some of the views of Human Rights Watch, but publicly he took a different tone.
I’m a latish baby boomer, and I want to live for a long time yet, but the world will be better off when we baby boomers (especially the late ones) are all dead, and history can have its way with the Vietnam era. I’m starting to believe strongly that Korea and Vietnam (and the cold war generally) were so closely connected to WWII that baby boomers can’t possibly have an objective view of what went on then, basically because they didn’t experience the trauma of WWII.
This assumes that having experienced the trauma of WWII gives anyone a more accurate understanding of the events in Vietnam.
Which kind of begs the question.
US involvement in Vietnam was a complex, generation-long series of events. If you include the French history there, which you probably should, that extends back into the 19th or even 18th centuries.
However you slice it, there’s enough material there for a pretty large number of narratives, each of which would unpack whatever can be known about the facts on the ground to elaborate a particular understanding of what they mean.
Folks who come along after we late-boomers all croak will have their own, influenced by their own experience and circumstances.
No more or less legitimate than that of the late-boomers, or for that matter of that of the cold warriors who drove our involvement there.
No more or less legitimate than that of the Vietnamese folks who fought for or against us, or who live there now, or who left Vietnam in the post-war period.
One of the legacies of Vietnam was the phrase “we had to destroy the village in order to save it”.
As a simple bar for knowing whether your own understanding of things is on track, I would submit that the point at which you find yourself uttering that line is precisely the point at which it’s time to consider whether you’re doing it wrong.
At that point, you’re probably making a grievous error of some kind. You’ve gang agley. You’re no longer on the good foot.
I would say that the understanding of the cold warriors – that we were locked in a global, existential, life-and-death struggle with creeping communism, and that the future of humanity required us to do anything necessary to ward that off – was not really a completely accurate understanding of the world.
And, that decisions made based on that understanding were frequently erroneous.
And, that the evidence of that were all of the villages we felt we simply had to destroy in order to save them.
Back in my days of hanging on RedState, I had an extended conversation with Thomas Crown, at the time an editor there, about the virtues of Pinochet.
Crown considered him a hero, because he wasn’t a socialist. Castro gave Allende a rifle, for god’s sake! What else do you need to know?
All of the people he murdered, just an unfortunate price of doing business.
Really? The people of Chile, and of the world in general, were better off with Pinochet in charge than Allende?
Lather rinse and repeat, for a generation or two.
I don’t really expect our kids and grandkids to have any better understanding of things than we do, or than our parents did. We will all make our own mistakes, and get our own set of things right or wrong.
But if you’re destroying the village in order to save it, your understanding of things is probably off.
I’m a latish baby boomer, and I want to live for a long time yet, but the world will be better off when we baby boomers (especially the late ones) are all dead, and history can have its way with the Vietnam era. I’m starting to believe strongly that Korea and Vietnam (and the cold war generally) were so closely connected to WWII that baby boomers can’t possibly have an objective view of what went on then, basically because they didn’t experience the trauma of WWII.
This assumes that having experienced the trauma of WWII gives anyone a more accurate understanding of the events in Vietnam.
Which kind of begs the question.
US involvement in Vietnam was a complex, generation-long series of events. If you include the French history there, which you probably should, that extends back into the 19th or even 18th centuries.
However you slice it, there’s enough material there for a pretty large number of narratives, each of which would unpack whatever can be known about the facts on the ground to elaborate a particular understanding of what they mean.
Folks who come along after we late-boomers all croak will have their own, influenced by their own experience and circumstances.
No more or less legitimate than that of the late-boomers, or for that matter of that of the cold warriors who drove our involvement there.
No more or less legitimate than that of the Vietnamese folks who fought for or against us, or who live there now, or who left Vietnam in the post-war period.
One of the legacies of Vietnam was the phrase “we had to destroy the village in order to save it”.
As a simple bar for knowing whether your own understanding of things is on track, I would submit that the point at which you find yourself uttering that line is precisely the point at which it’s time to consider whether you’re doing it wrong.
At that point, you’re probably making a grievous error of some kind. You’ve gang agley. You’re no longer on the good foot.
I would say that the understanding of the cold warriors – that we were locked in a global, existential, life-and-death struggle with creeping communism, and that the future of humanity required us to do anything necessary to ward that off – was not really a completely accurate understanding of the world.
And, that decisions made based on that understanding were frequently erroneous.
And, that the evidence of that were all of the villages we felt we simply had to destroy in order to save them.
Back in my days of hanging on RedState, I had an extended conversation with Thomas Crown, at the time an editor there, about the virtues of Pinochet.
Crown considered him a hero, because he wasn’t a socialist. Castro gave Allende a rifle, for god’s sake! What else do you need to know?
All of the people he murdered, just an unfortunate price of doing business.
Really? The people of Chile, and of the world in general, were better off with Pinochet in charge than Allende?
Lather rinse and repeat, for a generation or two.
I don’t really expect our kids and grandkids to have any better understanding of things than we do, or than our parents did. We will all make our own mistakes, and get our own set of things right or wrong.
But if you’re destroying the village in order to save it, your understanding of things is probably off.
I’m a latish baby boomer, and I want to live for a long time yet, but the world will be better off when we baby boomers (especially the late ones) are all dead, and history can have its way with the Vietnam era. I’m starting to believe strongly that Korea and Vietnam (and the cold war generally) were so closely connected to WWII that baby boomers can’t possibly have an objective view of what went on then, basically because they didn’t experience the trauma of WWII.
This assumes that having experienced the trauma of WWII gives anyone a more accurate understanding of the events in Vietnam.
Which kind of begs the question.
US involvement in Vietnam was a complex, generation-long series of events. If you include the French history there, which you probably should, that extends back into the 19th or even 18th centuries.
However you slice it, there’s enough material there for a pretty large number of narratives, each of which would unpack whatever can be known about the facts on the ground to elaborate a particular understanding of what they mean.
Folks who come along after we late-boomers all croak will have their own, influenced by their own experience and circumstances.
No more or less legitimate than that of the late-boomers, or for that matter of that of the cold warriors who drove our involvement there.
No more or less legitimate than that of the Vietnamese folks who fought for or against us, or who live there now, or who left Vietnam in the post-war period.
One of the legacies of Vietnam was the phrase “we had to destroy the village in order to save it”.
As a simple bar for knowing whether your own understanding of things is on track, I would submit that the point at which you find yourself uttering that line is precisely the point at which it’s time to consider whether you’re doing it wrong.
At that point, you’re probably making a grievous error of some kind. You’ve gang agley. You’re no longer on the good foot.
I would say that the understanding of the cold warriors – that we were locked in a global, existential, life-and-death struggle with creeping communism, and that the future of humanity required us to do anything necessary to ward that off – was not really a completely accurate understanding of the world.
And, that decisions made based on that understanding were frequently erroneous.
And, that the evidence of that were all of the villages we felt we simply had to destroy in order to save them.
Back in my days of hanging on RedState, I had an extended conversation with Thomas Crown, at the time an editor there, about the virtues of Pinochet.
Crown considered him a hero, because he wasn’t a socialist. Castro gave Allende a rifle, for god’s sake! What else do you need to know?
All of the people he murdered, just an unfortunate price of doing business.
Really? The people of Chile, and of the world in general, were better off with Pinochet in charge than Allende?
Lather rinse and repeat, for a generation or two.
I don’t really expect our kids and grandkids to have any better understanding of things than we do, or than our parents did. We will all make our own mistakes, and get our own set of things right or wrong.
But if you’re destroying the village in order to save it, your understanding of things is probably off.
Vietnam is a good example. The communist guerillas murdered tens of thousands of civilians, the most famous atrocity being the massacre at Hue.
And they obviously thought of themselves as fighting for independence against the greatest superpower in history, dying in the hundreds of thousands under millions of tons of bombs and artillery shells ( along with a comparable or greater number of civilians).
After the war the losers were sent to re- education camps.
So I’m fine with recognizing good intentions and atrocities committed in the name of good intentions on both sides.
Vietnam is a good example. The communist guerillas murdered tens of thousands of civilians, the most famous atrocity being the massacre at Hue.
And they obviously thought of themselves as fighting for independence against the greatest superpower in history, dying in the hundreds of thousands under millions of tons of bombs and artillery shells ( along with a comparable or greater number of civilians).
After the war the losers were sent to re- education camps.
So I’m fine with recognizing good intentions and atrocities committed in the name of good intentions on both sides.
Vietnam is a good example. The communist guerillas murdered tens of thousands of civilians, the most famous atrocity being the massacre at Hue.
And they obviously thought of themselves as fighting for independence against the greatest superpower in history, dying in the hundreds of thousands under millions of tons of bombs and artillery shells ( along with a comparable or greater number of civilians).
After the war the losers were sent to re- education camps.
So I’m fine with recognizing good intentions and atrocities committed in the name of good intentions on both sides.
http://www.crackle.com/watch/video/2497717/
http://www.crackle.com/watch/video/2497717/
http://www.crackle.com/watch/video/2497717/
Regardless of intent or morality (subjects of endless arguments), the policy was dead wrong (fairly airtight case for that). Even on its own terms, those policies were a disaster.
I have absolutely no quarrel with this, and have no problem with judging the policy in Vietnam as wrong, wrong and more wrong.
I just think that judging the people who made those decisions is much more tricky. The prospect of nuclear war was a new phenomenon – people were learning how to handle it.
Regardless of intent or morality (subjects of endless arguments), the policy was dead wrong (fairly airtight case for that). Even on its own terms, those policies were a disaster.
I have absolutely no quarrel with this, and have no problem with judging the policy in Vietnam as wrong, wrong and more wrong.
I just think that judging the people who made those decisions is much more tricky. The prospect of nuclear war was a new phenomenon – people were learning how to handle it.
Regardless of intent or morality (subjects of endless arguments), the policy was dead wrong (fairly airtight case for that). Even on its own terms, those policies were a disaster.
I have absolutely no quarrel with this, and have no problem with judging the policy in Vietnam as wrong, wrong and more wrong.
I just think that judging the people who made those decisions is much more tricky. The prospect of nuclear war was a new phenomenon – people were learning how to handle it.
I don’t really expect our kids and grandkids to have any better understanding of things than we do, or than our parents did. We will all make our own mistakes, and get our own set of things right or wrong.
I actually have a great deal of hope that the younger generation will understand their world much better than we do. A huge number of them go abroad and have a greater facility with languages and culture. It’s harder to dehumanize people when you’ve seen them up close.
I don’t really expect our kids and grandkids to have any better understanding of things than we do, or than our parents did. We will all make our own mistakes, and get our own set of things right or wrong.
I actually have a great deal of hope that the younger generation will understand their world much better than we do. A huge number of them go abroad and have a greater facility with languages and culture. It’s harder to dehumanize people when you’ve seen them up close.
I don’t really expect our kids and grandkids to have any better understanding of things than we do, or than our parents did. We will all make our own mistakes, and get our own set of things right or wrong.
I actually have a great deal of hope that the younger generation will understand their world much better than we do. A huge number of them go abroad and have a greater facility with languages and culture. It’s harder to dehumanize people when you’ve seen them up close.
The problem is that the default view that is taken, that our leaders are doing things for the best of motives, implies American exceptionalism unless we make this the default assumption for everyone. Assume that every leader of every group or country does things for the best of motives.
I actually think that is the right assumption to make for anyone, including the leaders of any group or country. Until they demonstrate otherwise. Certainly a lot of them will so demonstrate. But for any new leader or group we still should start with the assumption of good intentions.
Once we have experience with them, we can shift to a view based on their track record. (With the caveat that a single datapoint generally makes a poor predictor.) If we find a pattern of bad intentions (“bad” from our point of view; not necessarily from theirs), then we start there when future actions occur.
The problem is that the default view that is taken, that our leaders are doing things for the best of motives, implies American exceptionalism unless we make this the default assumption for everyone. Assume that every leader of every group or country does things for the best of motives.
I actually think that is the right assumption to make for anyone, including the leaders of any group or country. Until they demonstrate otherwise. Certainly a lot of them will so demonstrate. But for any new leader or group we still should start with the assumption of good intentions.
Once we have experience with them, we can shift to a view based on their track record. (With the caveat that a single datapoint generally makes a poor predictor.) If we find a pattern of bad intentions (“bad” from our point of view; not necessarily from theirs), then we start there when future actions occur.
The problem is that the default view that is taken, that our leaders are doing things for the best of motives, implies American exceptionalism unless we make this the default assumption for everyone. Assume that every leader of every group or country does things for the best of motives.
I actually think that is the right assumption to make for anyone, including the leaders of any group or country. Until they demonstrate otherwise. Certainly a lot of them will so demonstrate. But for any new leader or group we still should start with the assumption of good intentions.
Once we have experience with them, we can shift to a view based on their track record. (With the caveat that a single datapoint generally makes a poor predictor.) If we find a pattern of bad intentions (“bad” from our point of view; not necessarily from theirs), then we start there when future actions occur.
I actually think that is the right assumption to make for anyone, including the leaders of any group or country
seriously.
the other option is to, what, assume everybody is always trying to screw you over in some way ?
i get that miserable cynicism is always in fashion. but, there’s no way i could make that my default. it’s poisonous.
I actually think that is the right assumption to make for anyone, including the leaders of any group or country
seriously.
the other option is to, what, assume everybody is always trying to screw you over in some way ?
i get that miserable cynicism is always in fashion. but, there’s no way i could make that my default. it’s poisonous.
I actually think that is the right assumption to make for anyone, including the leaders of any group or country
seriously.
the other option is to, what, assume everybody is always trying to screw you over in some way ?
i get that miserable cynicism is always in fashion. but, there’s no way i could make that my default. it’s poisonous.
Exactly. But that poisonous view seems to have an increasing (or, at least, increasingly loud) following.
Exactly. But that poisonous view seems to have an increasing (or, at least, increasingly loud) following.
Exactly. But that poisonous view seems to have an increasing (or, at least, increasingly loud) following.
wj, I wonder which world leaders we have been judged by this poisonous view without a track record. I cant think of one. Unless you are considering the fairly new North Korean dictator. Maybe the new Canadian PM? The leaders of ISIS? The leadership of say, Iran, has a pretty long history of supporting terrorism through proxy. I am just trying to understand the increasing following statement.
wj, I wonder which world leaders we have been judged by this poisonous view without a track record. I cant think of one. Unless you are considering the fairly new North Korean dictator. Maybe the new Canadian PM? The leaders of ISIS? The leadership of say, Iran, has a pretty long history of supporting terrorism through proxy. I am just trying to understand the increasing following statement.
wj, I wonder which world leaders we have been judged by this poisonous view without a track record. I cant think of one. Unless you are considering the fairly new North Korean dictator. Maybe the new Canadian PM? The leaders of ISIS? The leadership of say, Iran, has a pretty long history of supporting terrorism through proxy. I am just trying to understand the increasing following statement.
The prospect of nuclear war was a new phenomenon – people were learning how to handle it.
It might come as a shock, but weren’t the Russians experiencing the same phenomenon, and from a continuous position of strategic military inferiority?
The prospect of nuclear war was a new phenomenon – people were learning how to handle it.
It might come as a shock, but weren’t the Russians experiencing the same phenomenon, and from a continuous position of strategic military inferiority?
The prospect of nuclear war was a new phenomenon – people were learning how to handle it.
It might come as a shock, but weren’t the Russians experiencing the same phenomenon, and from a continuous position of strategic military inferiority?
I would say that any time there is a leadership change in a country with which we have had “difficult” relations, we have tended to assume that the new leader will be a bad as the previous one. Mikhail Gorbachev and Akbar Rafsanjani come to mind as cases where that assumption was less than correct.
I would say that any time there is a leadership change in a country with which we have had “difficult” relations, we have tended to assume that the new leader will be a bad as the previous one. Mikhail Gorbachev and Akbar Rafsanjani come to mind as cases where that assumption was less than correct.
I would say that any time there is a leadership change in a country with which we have had “difficult” relations, we have tended to assume that the new leader will be a bad as the previous one. Mikhail Gorbachev and Akbar Rafsanjani come to mind as cases where that assumption was less than correct.
It might come as a shock, but weren’t the Russians experiencing the same phenomenon, and from a continuous position of strategic military inferiority?
What? You prefer Soviet foreign policy post-WWII? Interesting.
It might come as a shock, but weren’t the Russians experiencing the same phenomenon, and from a continuous position of strategic military inferiority?
What? You prefer Soviet foreign policy post-WWII? Interesting.
It might come as a shock, but weren’t the Russians experiencing the same phenomenon, and from a continuous position of strategic military inferiority?
What? You prefer Soviet foreign policy post-WWII? Interesting.
Iran, has a pretty long history of supporting terrorism through proxy.
In some ways, so do we.
Iran, has a pretty long history of supporting terrorism through proxy.
In some ways, so do we.
Iran, has a pretty long history of supporting terrorism through proxy.
In some ways, so do we.
What? You prefer Soviet foreign policy post-WWII? Interesting.
What? You prefer unbridled aggressive hatred to understanding?
What? You prefer Soviet foreign policy post-WWII? Interesting.
What? You prefer unbridled aggressive hatred to understanding?
What? You prefer Soviet foreign policy post-WWII? Interesting.
What? You prefer unbridled aggressive hatred to understanding?
The “oops, my bad, but hey, nobody’s perfect” defence of US foreign policy disasters leaves something to be desired both on an ethical and analytical level …
Anyway, Happy New Year!
The “oops, my bad, but hey, nobody’s perfect” defence of US foreign policy disasters leaves something to be desired both on an ethical and analytical level …
Anyway, Happy New Year!
The “oops, my bad, but hey, nobody’s perfect” defence of US foreign policy disasters leaves something to be desired both on an ethical and analytical level …
Anyway, Happy New Year!
It’s been a decade since I read anything so maddeningly obtuse about any foreign policy topic. Any analysis of the Yemeni war that doesn’t address the role of ex-Pres. Saleh* — and instead talks seriously about Iran — is missing the point. Which is exactly what certain belligerents want. Closing the straits is less credible than that African yellowcake as a causus belli.
What is happening now has a lot more to do with what happened in 2011-12 than any of the kind of great power maneuvering that fools in the Village like to imagine as the only important game going.
We are condoning (and obstructing accountability for) war crimes by our ally Saudia, and conquest by the ally of our ally (al Qaeda) in the name of reinstating a deposed ex-president, with virtually no popular support, mostly using foreign ground troops. This will end well.
* An important fellow in the history of Yemen. Forces loyal to him were the critical element in the Houthi success in the fall of 2014. And to this day.
It’s been a decade since I read anything so maddeningly obtuse about any foreign policy topic. Any analysis of the Yemeni war that doesn’t address the role of ex-Pres. Saleh* — and instead talks seriously about Iran — is missing the point. Which is exactly what certain belligerents want. Closing the straits is less credible than that African yellowcake as a causus belli.
What is happening now has a lot more to do with what happened in 2011-12 than any of the kind of great power maneuvering that fools in the Village like to imagine as the only important game going.
We are condoning (and obstructing accountability for) war crimes by our ally Saudia, and conquest by the ally of our ally (al Qaeda) in the name of reinstating a deposed ex-president, with virtually no popular support, mostly using foreign ground troops. This will end well.
* An important fellow in the history of Yemen. Forces loyal to him were the critical element in the Houthi success in the fall of 2014. And to this day.
It’s been a decade since I read anything so maddeningly obtuse about any foreign policy topic. Any analysis of the Yemeni war that doesn’t address the role of ex-Pres. Saleh* — and instead talks seriously about Iran — is missing the point. Which is exactly what certain belligerents want. Closing the straits is less credible than that African yellowcake as a causus belli.
What is happening now has a lot more to do with what happened in 2011-12 than any of the kind of great power maneuvering that fools in the Village like to imagine as the only important game going.
We are condoning (and obstructing accountability for) war crimes by our ally Saudia, and conquest by the ally of our ally (al Qaeda) in the name of reinstating a deposed ex-president, with virtually no popular support, mostly using foreign ground troops. This will end well.
* An important fellow in the history of Yemen. Forces loyal to him were the critical element in the Houthi success in the fall of 2014. And to this day.
Any analysis of the Yemeni war that doesn’t address the role of ex-Pres. Saleh* — and instead talks seriously about Iran — is missing the point.
It may not be on point about the Yemeni civil war, but it’s not missing the point about the Saudi fear of being encircled by Shiites. Our support for the Saudis is probably part of a diplomatic maneuver. Whether it is worth whatever we’re getting back is certainly a good question, but saying things like “the fools in the Village” doesn’t really answer (or ask) it.
Any analysis of the Yemeni war that doesn’t address the role of ex-Pres. Saleh* — and instead talks seriously about Iran — is missing the point.
It may not be on point about the Yemeni civil war, but it’s not missing the point about the Saudi fear of being encircled by Shiites. Our support for the Saudis is probably part of a diplomatic maneuver. Whether it is worth whatever we’re getting back is certainly a good question, but saying things like “the fools in the Village” doesn’t really answer (or ask) it.
Any analysis of the Yemeni war that doesn’t address the role of ex-Pres. Saleh* — and instead talks seriously about Iran — is missing the point.
It may not be on point about the Yemeni civil war, but it’s not missing the point about the Saudi fear of being encircled by Shiites. Our support for the Saudis is probably part of a diplomatic maneuver. Whether it is worth whatever we’re getting back is certainly a good question, but saying things like “the fools in the Village” doesn’t really answer (or ask) it.
The character of Powers, Carter, and Obama is one thing, and it’s important, to be sure. Thing is, when you get involved in someone else’s civil war, you end up having to adopt your allies’ war aims, and the character of their leaders.
Our embrace of Nouri al-Maliki turned out, as things developed after the pull-out, to have been a really bad deal. Would some other person have been able to maintain a more unified Sunni-Shia government? Possibly, although obviously the forces at work are bigger than any particular individuals. But the notion that the character of Obama, Powers, Clinton would have made any difference at all is laughable.
Our embrace of Karzai didn’t work out as hoped either.
In Yemen, if our allies prevail, we’ll be chained to the characters of Hadi and the al-Ahmar brothers. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Saudis were looking for an Islah dominated government there, soft on AQAP and the nascent Yemeni version of IS. If we’ve been given assurances that we’ll still be able to drone AQAP, well, those will be as enforceable as Maliki’s promises to retain Sunni officers in the Iraqi army.
The character of Powers, Carter, and Obama is one thing, and it’s important, to be sure. Thing is, when you get involved in someone else’s civil war, you end up having to adopt your allies’ war aims, and the character of their leaders.
Our embrace of Nouri al-Maliki turned out, as things developed after the pull-out, to have been a really bad deal. Would some other person have been able to maintain a more unified Sunni-Shia government? Possibly, although obviously the forces at work are bigger than any particular individuals. But the notion that the character of Obama, Powers, Clinton would have made any difference at all is laughable.
Our embrace of Karzai didn’t work out as hoped either.
In Yemen, if our allies prevail, we’ll be chained to the characters of Hadi and the al-Ahmar brothers. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Saudis were looking for an Islah dominated government there, soft on AQAP and the nascent Yemeni version of IS. If we’ve been given assurances that we’ll still be able to drone AQAP, well, those will be as enforceable as Maliki’s promises to retain Sunni officers in the Iraqi army.
The character of Powers, Carter, and Obama is one thing, and it’s important, to be sure. Thing is, when you get involved in someone else’s civil war, you end up having to adopt your allies’ war aims, and the character of their leaders.
Our embrace of Nouri al-Maliki turned out, as things developed after the pull-out, to have been a really bad deal. Would some other person have been able to maintain a more unified Sunni-Shia government? Possibly, although obviously the forces at work are bigger than any particular individuals. But the notion that the character of Obama, Powers, Clinton would have made any difference at all is laughable.
Our embrace of Karzai didn’t work out as hoped either.
In Yemen, if our allies prevail, we’ll be chained to the characters of Hadi and the al-Ahmar brothers. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Saudis were looking for an Islah dominated government there, soft on AQAP and the nascent Yemeni version of IS. If we’ve been given assurances that we’ll still be able to drone AQAP, well, those will be as enforceable as Maliki’s promises to retain Sunni officers in the Iraqi army.
The mostly-Arab coalition providing direct military support on the Saudi side consists of 11 countries. Five countries (including the US) are providing other support. Why is there such a large consensus against the Houthis if the rebel movement is so benign? I’m asking because I’m curious.
The mostly-Arab coalition providing direct military support on the Saudi side consists of 11 countries. Five countries (including the US) are providing other support. Why is there such a large consensus against the Houthis if the rebel movement is so benign? I’m asking because I’m curious.
The mostly-Arab coalition providing direct military support on the Saudi side consists of 11 countries. Five countries (including the US) are providing other support. Why is there such a large consensus against the Houthis if the rebel movement is so benign? I’m asking because I’m curious.
Sorry my Godwin but why were most Christian countries united against the Jews in the past when Jews were not guilty of all the stuff they were accused of?
All those Arab countries are also not very fond of democracy, so there must be something bad about the idea or there would not be such consent.
If so many milions of people hate the US, there must be some sound reason (maybe this ‘freedom’ thingie).
I make no claims about the character of the Houthis just pointing at the absurdity of the claim that having many enemies means **automatically** must mean that one is bad.
Sorry my Godwin but why were most Christian countries united against the Jews in the past when Jews were not guilty of all the stuff they were accused of?
All those Arab countries are also not very fond of democracy, so there must be something bad about the idea or there would not be such consent.
If so many milions of people hate the US, there must be some sound reason (maybe this ‘freedom’ thingie).
I make no claims about the character of the Houthis just pointing at the absurdity of the claim that having many enemies means **automatically** must mean that one is bad.
Sorry my Godwin but why were most Christian countries united against the Jews in the past when Jews were not guilty of all the stuff they were accused of?
All those Arab countries are also not very fond of democracy, so there must be something bad about the idea or there would not be such consent.
If so many milions of people hate the US, there must be some sound reason (maybe this ‘freedom’ thingie).
I make no claims about the character of the Houthis just pointing at the absurdity of the claim that having many enemies means **automatically** must mean that one is bad.
The term, “large consensus”, is simply put, misleading.
The Saudis may be embarking on a dangerous course. When will we reign them in? And is it our place to do so? As far as I can tell, these are questions not under consideration by our wise leaders.
Beyond the Saudi self serving bleating about ‘fighting terrorism’, do we desire to become entangled further in a religious civil war?
The term, “large consensus”, is simply put, misleading.
The Saudis may be embarking on a dangerous course. When will we reign them in? And is it our place to do so? As far as I can tell, these are questions not under consideration by our wise leaders.
Beyond the Saudi self serving bleating about ‘fighting terrorism’, do we desire to become entangled further in a religious civil war?
The term, “large consensus”, is simply put, misleading.
The Saudis may be embarking on a dangerous course. When will we reign them in? And is it our place to do so? As far as I can tell, these are questions not under consideration by our wise leaders.
Beyond the Saudi self serving bleating about ‘fighting terrorism’, do we desire to become entangled further in a religious civil war?
I make no claims about the character of the Houthis just pointing at the absurdity of the claim that having many enemies means **automatically** must mean that one is bad.
I didn’t make that claim. I simply posed the question. Clearly lots of Sunnis don’t like Shias, but also vice versa, and the fear of a power imbalance is justified, since both sides have powerful elements.
I make no claims about the character of the Houthis just pointing at the absurdity of the claim that having many enemies means **automatically** must mean that one is bad.
I didn’t make that claim. I simply posed the question. Clearly lots of Sunnis don’t like Shias, but also vice versa, and the fear of a power imbalance is justified, since both sides have powerful elements.
I make no claims about the character of the Houthis just pointing at the absurdity of the claim that having many enemies means **automatically** must mean that one is bad.
I didn’t make that claim. I simply posed the question. Clearly lots of Sunnis don’t like Shias, but also vice versa, and the fear of a power imbalance is justified, since both sides have powerful elements.
do we desire to become entangled further in a religious civil war?
No. But are we already entangled? Yes. How to manage our existing relationships there is the issue.
do we desire to become entangled further in a religious civil war?
No. But are we already entangled? Yes. How to manage our existing relationships there is the issue.
do we desire to become entangled further in a religious civil war?
No. But are we already entangled? Yes. How to manage our existing relationships there is the issue.
Sapient,
Just finished “Lion of the Senate” by Littlefield and Nexon. This Ted Kennedy hagiograpy verges on idolatry, but Senator Ted did good things.
If you haven’t read it already, I’m sure you would enjoy it.
How to manage our existing relationships there is the issue.
Granted. But certain options appear to be “off limits” due to the chains we have forged in the past.
Sapient,
Just finished “Lion of the Senate” by Littlefield and Nexon. This Ted Kennedy hagiograpy verges on idolatry, but Senator Ted did good things.
If you haven’t read it already, I’m sure you would enjoy it.
How to manage our existing relationships there is the issue.
Granted. But certain options appear to be “off limits” due to the chains we have forged in the past.
Sapient,
Just finished “Lion of the Senate” by Littlefield and Nexon. This Ted Kennedy hagiograpy verges on idolatry, but Senator Ted did good things.
If you haven’t read it already, I’m sure you would enjoy it.
How to manage our existing relationships there is the issue.
Granted. But certain options appear to be “off limits” due to the chains we have forged in the past.
Interesting, bobbyp. Thanks for the recommendation!
Interesting, bobbyp. Thanks for the recommendation!
Interesting, bobbyp. Thanks for the recommendation!
it’s not missing the point about the Saudi fear of being encircled by Shiites.
I really don’t think that the Saudi’s are all that worried about foreign policy when it comes to their actions in Yemen. Not that they would love another Shia neighbor, but it isn’t really a big concern. Rather, I think it is, overwhelmingly, a matter of domestic affairs.
In Yemen, a Sunni government got kicked out of control of a Shia area of the country. There were other things going on as well, but that was the critical one from the Saudi point of view. Because the Saudi oil is all in the part of the country where the Shia are the vast majority. And the Saudi’s are horrified by the thought that the Shia there might try to do the same thing. Which the resulting loss of the vast majority of the national income on which the government/royal family depends.
it’s not missing the point about the Saudi fear of being encircled by Shiites.
I really don’t think that the Saudi’s are all that worried about foreign policy when it comes to their actions in Yemen. Not that they would love another Shia neighbor, but it isn’t really a big concern. Rather, I think it is, overwhelmingly, a matter of domestic affairs.
In Yemen, a Sunni government got kicked out of control of a Shia area of the country. There were other things going on as well, but that was the critical one from the Saudi point of view. Because the Saudi oil is all in the part of the country where the Shia are the vast majority. And the Saudi’s are horrified by the thought that the Shia there might try to do the same thing. Which the resulting loss of the vast majority of the national income on which the government/royal family depends.
it’s not missing the point about the Saudi fear of being encircled by Shiites.
I really don’t think that the Saudi’s are all that worried about foreign policy when it comes to their actions in Yemen. Not that they would love another Shia neighbor, but it isn’t really a big concern. Rather, I think it is, overwhelmingly, a matter of domestic affairs.
In Yemen, a Sunni government got kicked out of control of a Shia area of the country. There were other things going on as well, but that was the critical one from the Saudi point of view. Because the Saudi oil is all in the part of the country where the Shia are the vast majority. And the Saudi’s are horrified by the thought that the Shia there might try to do the same thing. Which the resulting loss of the vast majority of the national income on which the government/royal family depends.
And, sapient, you did notice that half of those Arab allies are from the Gulf. Where Sunni governments are running countries with substantial Shia majorities. They would fear the example of a Shia rebellion at least as much as the Saudis.
And, sapient, you did notice that half of those Arab allies are from the Gulf. Where Sunni governments are running countries with substantial Shia majorities. They would fear the example of a Shia rebellion at least as much as the Saudis.
And, sapient, you did notice that half of those Arab allies are from the Gulf. Where Sunni governments are running countries with substantial Shia majorities. They would fear the example of a Shia rebellion at least as much as the Saudis.
The only coalition country with a Shia majority is Bahrain.
The only coalition country with a Shia majority is Bahrain.
The only coalition country with a Shia majority is Bahrain.
And the UAE.
And the UAE.
And the UAE.
And the UAE.
Wikipedia says they’re 85% Sunni. Is that incorrect?
And the UAE.
Wikipedia says they’re 85% Sunni. Is that incorrect?
And the UAE.
Wikipedia says they’re 85% Sunni. Is that incorrect?
I seem to have mis-read the table I was looking at. Sorry.
I seem to have mis-read the table I was looking at. Sorry.
I seem to have mis-read the table I was looking at. Sorry.
Maybe it should be mentioned that the Saudi led coalition is committing war crimes on Yemen, declaring whole cities as military bombing targets. All this is done with arms supplied by “us”.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/press-releases/2015/10/yemen-call-for-suspension-of-arms-transfers-to-coalition-and-accountability-for-war-crimes/
Maybe it should be mentioned that the Saudi led coalition is committing war crimes on Yemen, declaring whole cities as military bombing targets. All this is done with arms supplied by “us”.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/press-releases/2015/10/yemen-call-for-suspension-of-arms-transfers-to-coalition-and-accountability-for-war-crimes/
Maybe it should be mentioned that the Saudi led coalition is committing war crimes on Yemen, declaring whole cities as military bombing targets. All this is done with arms supplied by “us”.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/press-releases/2015/10/yemen-call-for-suspension-of-arms-transfers-to-coalition-and-accountability-for-war-crimes/
the Saudi fear of being encircled by Shiites
?!?!?!?!
the Saudi fear of being encircled by Shiites
?!?!?!?!
the Saudi fear of being encircled by Shiites
?!?!?!?!
Russell, is the Saudi concern any more ridiculous than the Russian concern about being “encircled” by NATO? Or any more sensible?
Russell, is the Saudi concern any more ridiculous than the Russian concern about being “encircled” by NATO? Or any more sensible?
Russell, is the Saudi concern any more ridiculous than the Russian concern about being “encircled” by NATO? Or any more sensible?
Does the NATO treaty allow us to call for assistance
in Oregon?
Does the NATO treaty allow us to call for assistance
in Oregon?
Does the NATO treaty allow us to call for assistance
in Oregon?
Certainly we could call on NATO assistance. For an external attack. But what we have here is not an external attack (except, perhaps, in the mind of the militia members). So it’s strictly a domestic law-enforcement matter.
Certainly we could call on NATO assistance. For an external attack. But what we have here is not an external attack (except, perhaps, in the mind of the militia members). So it’s strictly a domestic law-enforcement matter.
Certainly we could call on NATO assistance. For an external attack. But what we have here is not an external attack (except, perhaps, in the mind of the militia members). So it’s strictly a domestic law-enforcement matter.
?!?!?!?!
Shias to the North, Shias to the South, Shias across the Gulf. I’m not saying they should be paranoid, but …
?!?!?!?!
Shias to the North, Shias to the South, Shias across the Gulf. I’m not saying they should be paranoid, but …
?!?!?!?!
Shias to the North, Shias to the South, Shias across the Gulf. I’m not saying they should be paranoid, but …
Shias to the North, Shias to the South, Shias across the Gulf.
Iran, Syria, and lately Iraq. And if you’re talking about places that are strongly majority Shia, as opposed to run by a Shia-aligned government, I think you’re really only talking about Iran, south-east Iraq, and two enclaves in the Arabian peninsula.
As far as places that are in a position to act as regional hegemons, you’re talking about Iran, full stop.
For reference.
And in the broader context.
They don’t need military aid, they need a map.
The larger and IMO more important question is : why is it in our interest to get involved in sectarian religious conflicts?
In particular when the folks we are supporting are the sponsors of activity that is not only not in our best interest, but which is emphatically antagonistic to us?
This:
But are we already entangled? Yes.
is not a strong argument. Being ‘entangled’ is our choice, not our fate.
Shias to the North, Shias to the South, Shias across the Gulf.
Iran, Syria, and lately Iraq. And if you’re talking about places that are strongly majority Shia, as opposed to run by a Shia-aligned government, I think you’re really only talking about Iran, south-east Iraq, and two enclaves in the Arabian peninsula.
As far as places that are in a position to act as regional hegemons, you’re talking about Iran, full stop.
For reference.
And in the broader context.
They don’t need military aid, they need a map.
The larger and IMO more important question is : why is it in our interest to get involved in sectarian religious conflicts?
In particular when the folks we are supporting are the sponsors of activity that is not only not in our best interest, but which is emphatically antagonistic to us?
This:
But are we already entangled? Yes.
is not a strong argument. Being ‘entangled’ is our choice, not our fate.
Shias to the North, Shias to the South, Shias across the Gulf.
Iran, Syria, and lately Iraq. And if you’re talking about places that are strongly majority Shia, as opposed to run by a Shia-aligned government, I think you’re really only talking about Iran, south-east Iraq, and two enclaves in the Arabian peninsula.
As far as places that are in a position to act as regional hegemons, you’re talking about Iran, full stop.
For reference.
And in the broader context.
They don’t need military aid, they need a map.
The larger and IMO more important question is : why is it in our interest to get involved in sectarian religious conflicts?
In particular when the folks we are supporting are the sponsors of activity that is not only not in our best interest, but which is emphatically antagonistic to us?
This:
But are we already entangled? Yes.
is not a strong argument. Being ‘entangled’ is our choice, not our fate.
…additionaly, the question was as to whether we should get further entangled…
…additionaly, the question was as to whether we should get further entangled…
…additionaly, the question was as to whether we should get further entangled…
And now the Saudis pour some more oil into the fire (pun not really intended) by a little mass execution of, so it is claimed, terrorists. Some of those seem to be but about some others it is rather doubtful and looking more like an opportunity to get rid of some troublesome priest* and other domestic critics of the House of Saud.
The uproar that caused in Tehran may be even an intended side effect. At least the ‘Death to…!’ chants have been temporarily switeched from ‘America’ to ‘the House of Saud’ and allows the latter to appeal to the former for even more support given the obvious threat from the unfriendly neighbour.
The first German reaction is a quite rare consent between the Left and the conservatives in parliament to call for an immediate end to any sale of military hardware to Saudi Arabia. Merkel seems not to have made an official statement yet though.
*Shia cleric
And now the Saudis pour some more oil into the fire (pun not really intended) by a little mass execution of, so it is claimed, terrorists. Some of those seem to be but about some others it is rather doubtful and looking more like an opportunity to get rid of some troublesome priest* and other domestic critics of the House of Saud.
The uproar that caused in Tehran may be even an intended side effect. At least the ‘Death to…!’ chants have been temporarily switeched from ‘America’ to ‘the House of Saud’ and allows the latter to appeal to the former for even more support given the obvious threat from the unfriendly neighbour.
The first German reaction is a quite rare consent between the Left and the conservatives in parliament to call for an immediate end to any sale of military hardware to Saudi Arabia. Merkel seems not to have made an official statement yet though.
*Shia cleric
And now the Saudis pour some more oil into the fire (pun not really intended) by a little mass execution of, so it is claimed, terrorists. Some of those seem to be but about some others it is rather doubtful and looking more like an opportunity to get rid of some troublesome priest* and other domestic critics of the House of Saud.
The uproar that caused in Tehran may be even an intended side effect. At least the ‘Death to…!’ chants have been temporarily switeched from ‘America’ to ‘the House of Saud’ and allows the latter to appeal to the former for even more support given the obvious threat from the unfriendly neighbour.
The first German reaction is a quite rare consent between the Left and the conservatives in parliament to call for an immediate end to any sale of military hardware to Saudi Arabia. Merkel seems not to have made an official statement yet though.
*Shia cleric
Novakant–That was mentioned by some of us rather vigorously a few days ago. I’ve been out of town and haven’t seen the discussion for a few days.
Novakant–That was mentioned by some of us rather vigorously a few days ago. I’ve been out of town and haven’t seen the discussion for a few days.
Novakant–That was mentioned by some of us rather vigorously a few days ago. I’ve been out of town and haven’t seen the discussion for a few days.
Britain’s response is rather more feeble than Germany’s:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/12079393/Britain-issues-careful-condemnation-of-ally-Saudi-Arabia.html
(quite possibly/likely because arms sales are of more economic significance to the UK…)
Note that Iran’s supreme leader is effectively calling for terrorist action against Saudis in Europe.
(And it’s a bit rich for the Iranians to be complaining about political executions…)
We have little choice but to deal with nations in the Middle East; whether we are doing so in a wise manner is extremely questionable.
Britain’s response is rather more feeble than Germany’s:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/12079393/Britain-issues-careful-condemnation-of-ally-Saudi-Arabia.html
(quite possibly/likely because arms sales are of more economic significance to the UK…)
Note that Iran’s supreme leader is effectively calling for terrorist action against Saudis in Europe.
(And it’s a bit rich for the Iranians to be complaining about political executions…)
We have little choice but to deal with nations in the Middle East; whether we are doing so in a wise manner is extremely questionable.
Britain’s response is rather more feeble than Germany’s:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/12079393/Britain-issues-careful-condemnation-of-ally-Saudi-Arabia.html
(quite possibly/likely because arms sales are of more economic significance to the UK…)
Note that Iran’s supreme leader is effectively calling for terrorist action against Saudis in Europe.
(And it’s a bit rich for the Iranians to be complaining about political executions…)
We have little choice but to deal with nations in the Middle East; whether we are doing so in a wise manner is extremely questionable.
(And it’s a bit rich for the Iranians to be complaining about political executions…)
Yeah.
We have little choice but to deal with nations in the Middle East; whether we are doing so in a wise manner is extremely questionable.
It is questionable, but the web is very tangled. Not sure it’s so easy to navigate a wise policy.
(And it’s a bit rich for the Iranians to be complaining about political executions…)
Yeah.
We have little choice but to deal with nations in the Middle East; whether we are doing so in a wise manner is extremely questionable.
It is questionable, but the web is very tangled. Not sure it’s so easy to navigate a wise policy.
(And it’s a bit rich for the Iranians to be complaining about political executions…)
Yeah.
We have little choice but to deal with nations in the Middle East; whether we are doing so in a wise manner is extremely questionable.
It is questionable, but the web is very tangled. Not sure it’s so easy to navigate a wise policy.
Being ‘entangled’ is our choice, not our fate.
The United States isn’t a high school student just saying no to drugs. We have a long history in the Middle East, and have already made lots of “deals”. It’s really naive to think that we can just ignore things we’ve promised to people with whom we’ve had a relationship for many decades. You’re really not looking at the larger picture when you think that our sudden absence is going to make things a-okay.
That said, finding ways to be constructive is delicate and difficult, and requires some knowledge of what we’ve promised in the past, what other issues are affecting the status quo, and an educated determination of what effect our future actions are going to have. I think it’s certainly fair to question what we’re doing, but to assume the worst of policymakers supporting the Saudis is to look at the situation with blinders.
Being ‘entangled’ is our choice, not our fate.
The United States isn’t a high school student just saying no to drugs. We have a long history in the Middle East, and have already made lots of “deals”. It’s really naive to think that we can just ignore things we’ve promised to people with whom we’ve had a relationship for many decades. You’re really not looking at the larger picture when you think that our sudden absence is going to make things a-okay.
That said, finding ways to be constructive is delicate and difficult, and requires some knowledge of what we’ve promised in the past, what other issues are affecting the status quo, and an educated determination of what effect our future actions are going to have. I think it’s certainly fair to question what we’re doing, but to assume the worst of policymakers supporting the Saudis is to look at the situation with blinders.
Being ‘entangled’ is our choice, not our fate.
The United States isn’t a high school student just saying no to drugs. We have a long history in the Middle East, and have already made lots of “deals”. It’s really naive to think that we can just ignore things we’ve promised to people with whom we’ve had a relationship for many decades. You’re really not looking at the larger picture when you think that our sudden absence is going to make things a-okay.
That said, finding ways to be constructive is delicate and difficult, and requires some knowledge of what we’ve promised in the past, what other issues are affecting the status quo, and an educated determination of what effect our future actions are going to have. I think it’s certainly fair to question what we’re doing, but to assume the worst of policymakers supporting the Saudis is to look at the situation with blinders.
“To assume the worst f our policy makers”
This is a secondary or tertiary issue. Most people have good intentions by their own lights. The Iranians who criticized the Saudis are probably as sincere as American policymakers, which was my point a few days ago–if we are going to assume the best about people’s intentions, don’t restrict this to Americans. If you think it is telling to point out Iranian hypocrisy on human rights, and obviously they are hypocritical, then it is fair to make the same observation about Americans.
Anyway, secondary issue. The primary issue is whether we should be assisting the Saudis in killing civilians.
“To assume the worst f our policy makers”
This is a secondary or tertiary issue. Most people have good intentions by their own lights. The Iranians who criticized the Saudis are probably as sincere as American policymakers, which was my point a few days ago–if we are going to assume the best about people’s intentions, don’t restrict this to Americans. If you think it is telling to point out Iranian hypocrisy on human rights, and obviously they are hypocritical, then it is fair to make the same observation about Americans.
Anyway, secondary issue. The primary issue is whether we should be assisting the Saudis in killing civilians.
“To assume the worst f our policy makers”
This is a secondary or tertiary issue. Most people have good intentions by their own lights. The Iranians who criticized the Saudis are probably as sincere as American policymakers, which was my point a few days ago–if we are going to assume the best about people’s intentions, don’t restrict this to Americans. If you think it is telling to point out Iranian hypocrisy on human rights, and obviously they are hypocritical, then it is fair to make the same observation about Americans.
Anyway, secondary issue. The primary issue is whether we should be assisting the Saudis in killing civilians.
The primary issue is whether we should be assisting the Saudis in killing civilians.
I don’t think that anyone thinks that we should be assisting the Saudis “in killing civilians.” If we’re assisting the Saudis, and they’re killing civilians, it doesn’t necessarily mean that we’re assisting the Saudis in killing civilians.
The primary issue is whether we should be assisting the Saudis in killing civilians.
I don’t think that anyone thinks that we should be assisting the Saudis “in killing civilians.” If we’re assisting the Saudis, and they’re killing civilians, it doesn’t necessarily mean that we’re assisting the Saudis in killing civilians.
The primary issue is whether we should be assisting the Saudis in killing civilians.
I don’t think that anyone thinks that we should be assisting the Saudis “in killing civilians.” If we’re assisting the Saudis, and they’re killing civilians, it doesn’t necessarily mean that we’re assisting the Saudis in killing civilians.
I didn’t and wouldn’t say that the Houthis are “benign.” Would I rather an Islah government?
In the five sided Yemeni war, there is one faction that is actually motivated and trying to attack the West. Defeat of AQAP ought to be our highest priority. Instead, just as in Syria, our Saudi allies are not interested in suppressing Sunni radicalism that is not targeting them.
I don’t think the Saudis are going to be successful in imposing Hadi on Yemen — they certainly haven’t been yet — and if they are, they’ll have to have an occupation to keep him in power. Our association with this effort will do us no good, and I’m confident that our leadership is making a big mistake, of the same kind that we, as a society, make over and over again.
So, does al-Hirak have any honest to God socialists these days? Probably not much support in the Gulf for that.
I didn’t and wouldn’t say that the Houthis are “benign.” Would I rather an Islah government?
In the five sided Yemeni war, there is one faction that is actually motivated and trying to attack the West. Defeat of AQAP ought to be our highest priority. Instead, just as in Syria, our Saudi allies are not interested in suppressing Sunni radicalism that is not targeting them.
I don’t think the Saudis are going to be successful in imposing Hadi on Yemen — they certainly haven’t been yet — and if they are, they’ll have to have an occupation to keep him in power. Our association with this effort will do us no good, and I’m confident that our leadership is making a big mistake, of the same kind that we, as a society, make over and over again.
So, does al-Hirak have any honest to God socialists these days? Probably not much support in the Gulf for that.
I didn’t and wouldn’t say that the Houthis are “benign.” Would I rather an Islah government?
In the five sided Yemeni war, there is one faction that is actually motivated and trying to attack the West. Defeat of AQAP ought to be our highest priority. Instead, just as in Syria, our Saudi allies are not interested in suppressing Sunni radicalism that is not targeting them.
I don’t think the Saudis are going to be successful in imposing Hadi on Yemen — they certainly haven’t been yet — and if they are, they’ll have to have an occupation to keep him in power. Our association with this effort will do us no good, and I’m confident that our leadership is making a big mistake, of the same kind that we, as a society, make over and over again.
So, does al-Hirak have any honest to God socialists these days? Probably not much support in the Gulf for that.
If we’re assisting the Saudis, and they’re killing civilians, it doesn’t necessarily mean that we’re assisting the Saudis in killing civilians.
This is technically true, but essentially meaningless, as it very carefully and unconvincingly professes agnosticism about precisely what sort of aid we’re providing. If the Saudis are using their air power to kill civilians, and we’re furnishing munitions, providing targeting intelligence, and refueling their bleeding bombers in flight, that does necessarily mean we’re assisting the Saudis kill civilians, and no amount of obfuscation or equivocation will change that.
If we’re assisting the Saudis, and they’re killing civilians, it doesn’t necessarily mean that we’re assisting the Saudis in killing civilians.
This is technically true, but essentially meaningless, as it very carefully and unconvincingly professes agnosticism about precisely what sort of aid we’re providing. If the Saudis are using their air power to kill civilians, and we’re furnishing munitions, providing targeting intelligence, and refueling their bleeding bombers in flight, that does necessarily mean we’re assisting the Saudis kill civilians, and no amount of obfuscation or equivocation will change that.
If we’re assisting the Saudis, and they’re killing civilians, it doesn’t necessarily mean that we’re assisting the Saudis in killing civilians.
This is technically true, but essentially meaningless, as it very carefully and unconvincingly professes agnosticism about precisely what sort of aid we’re providing. If the Saudis are using their air power to kill civilians, and we’re furnishing munitions, providing targeting intelligence, and refueling their bleeding bombers in flight, that does necessarily mean we’re assisting the Saudis kill civilians, and no amount of obfuscation or equivocation will change that.
that does necessarily mean we’re assisting the Saudis kill civilians, and no amount of obfuscation or equivocation will change that.
If we give a homeless person food, and they go kill someone with their eating utensils, we assisted the homeless person in killing someone, and no amount of obfuscation or equivocation will change that.
that does necessarily mean we’re assisting the Saudis kill civilians, and no amount of obfuscation or equivocation will change that.
If we give a homeless person food, and they go kill someone with their eating utensils, we assisted the homeless person in killing someone, and no amount of obfuscation or equivocation will change that.
that does necessarily mean we’re assisting the Saudis kill civilians, and no amount of obfuscation or equivocation will change that.
If we give a homeless person food, and they go kill someone with their eating utensils, we assisted the homeless person in killing someone, and no amount of obfuscation or equivocation will change that.
A slightly better analogy would be if you gave the homeless person a gun.
A slightly better analogy would be if you gave the homeless person a gun.
A slightly better analogy would be if you gave the homeless person a gun.
You’re really not looking at the larger picture when you think that our sudden absence is going to make things a-okay.
Our sudden absence?
I’m making a comment about our involvement in the Saudi’s war with the Houthis.
I’m not interested in the US getting in the middle of sectarian religious wars. And I think we should re-evaluate whether it makes sense for us to reflexively support the Saudis in their conflict with other countries and peoples in the middle east. They’re not always in the right, and they do not always place our interests at the very top of their list of priorities.
That’s pretty much all I’m saying.
You’re really not looking at the larger picture when you think that our sudden absence is going to make things a-okay.
Our sudden absence?
I’m making a comment about our involvement in the Saudi’s war with the Houthis.
I’m not interested in the US getting in the middle of sectarian religious wars. And I think we should re-evaluate whether it makes sense for us to reflexively support the Saudis in their conflict with other countries and peoples in the middle east. They’re not always in the right, and they do not always place our interests at the very top of their list of priorities.
That’s pretty much all I’m saying.
You’re really not looking at the larger picture when you think that our sudden absence is going to make things a-okay.
Our sudden absence?
I’m making a comment about our involvement in the Saudi’s war with the Houthis.
I’m not interested in the US getting in the middle of sectarian religious wars. And I think we should re-evaluate whether it makes sense for us to reflexively support the Saudis in their conflict with other countries and peoples in the middle east. They’re not always in the right, and they do not always place our interests at the very top of their list of priorities.
That’s pretty much all I’m saying.
I think it might be helpful if I repeated the link to the NYT article from Dec 23 outlining just what we are doing for the Saudis. If one reads it in good faith, sapient’s analogy seems inaccurate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/world/middleeast/saudi-led-war-in-yemen-frays-ties-with-the-us.html?ref=topics
I think it might be helpful if I repeated the link to the NYT article from Dec 23 outlining just what we are doing for the Saudis. If one reads it in good faith, sapient’s analogy seems inaccurate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/world/middleeast/saudi-led-war-in-yemen-frays-ties-with-the-us.html?ref=topics
I think it might be helpful if I repeated the link to the NYT article from Dec 23 outlining just what we are doing for the Saudis. If one reads it in good faith, sapient’s analogy seems inaccurate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/world/middleeast/saudi-led-war-in-yemen-frays-ties-with-the-us.html?ref=topics
I think it’s certainly fair to question what we’re doing..
Glory be halleluja.
It’s really naive to think that we can just ignore things we’ve promised to people with whom we’ve had a relationship for many decades.
It behooves you to tell us what promises have been made first, then we can discuss “ignoring” (a bullshit term) them. And what about promises made in return? “Ignoring” them doesn’t count?
Further, I see no evidence that anybody is arguing for our “absence” in the ME, so please do stop with the mind reading, OK?
I think it’s certainly fair to question what we’re doing..
Glory be halleluja.
It’s really naive to think that we can just ignore things we’ve promised to people with whom we’ve had a relationship for many decades.
It behooves you to tell us what promises have been made first, then we can discuss “ignoring” (a bullshit term) them. And what about promises made in return? “Ignoring” them doesn’t count?
Further, I see no evidence that anybody is arguing for our “absence” in the ME, so please do stop with the mind reading, OK?
I think it’s certainly fair to question what we’re doing..
Glory be halleluja.
It’s really naive to think that we can just ignore things we’ve promised to people with whom we’ve had a relationship for many decades.
It behooves you to tell us what promises have been made first, then we can discuss “ignoring” (a bullshit term) them. And what about promises made in return? “Ignoring” them doesn’t count?
Further, I see no evidence that anybody is arguing for our “absence” in the ME, so please do stop with the mind reading, OK?
Saudi Arabia has broken diplomatic relations with Iran, have called back all personnel and ordered all Iranian diplomats out within 48 hours. Iranians have stormed the Saudi enmbassy and set it on fire.
With a different guy in the WH we would probably seriously discuss by now when (not if) the US should declare war on Iran in defense of their Saudi ally.
Will enough Dems be persuaded now to join Republicans in killing the Iran nuclear deal? I would not be surprised.
Saudi Arabia has broken diplomatic relations with Iran, have called back all personnel and ordered all Iranian diplomats out within 48 hours. Iranians have stormed the Saudi enmbassy and set it on fire.
With a different guy in the WH we would probably seriously discuss by now when (not if) the US should declare war on Iran in defense of their Saudi ally.
Will enough Dems be persuaded now to join Republicans in killing the Iran nuclear deal? I would not be surprised.
Saudi Arabia has broken diplomatic relations with Iran, have called back all personnel and ordered all Iranian diplomats out within 48 hours. Iranians have stormed the Saudi enmbassy and set it on fire.
With a different guy in the WH we would probably seriously discuss by now when (not if) the US should declare war on Iran in defense of their Saudi ally.
Will enough Dems be persuaded now to join Republicans in killing the Iran nuclear deal? I would not be surprised.
Will enough Dems be persuaded now to join Republicans in killing the Iran nuclear deal…
One hopes they’re not going to be that stupid.
Iran is going to remain a significant power in the region after oil revenues dry up in a couple of decades’ time. We should be trying to make them our allies.
The same is not necessarily true of Saudi Arabia. In either respect.
Will enough Dems be persuaded now to join Republicans in killing the Iran nuclear deal…
One hopes they’re not going to be that stupid.
Iran is going to remain a significant power in the region after oil revenues dry up in a couple of decades’ time. We should be trying to make them our allies.
The same is not necessarily true of Saudi Arabia. In either respect.
Will enough Dems be persuaded now to join Republicans in killing the Iran nuclear deal…
One hopes they’re not going to be that stupid.
Iran is going to remain a significant power in the region after oil revenues dry up in a couple of decades’ time. We should be trying to make them our allies.
The same is not necessarily true of Saudi Arabia. In either respect.
And I think we should re-evaluate whether it makes sense for us to reflexively support the Saudis in their conflict with other countries and peoples in the middle east. They’re not always in the right, and they do not always place our interests at the very top of their list of priorities.
I don’t think we do support them reflexively. I don’t know that it’s in our best interests to support them in Yemen, although I think it’s possible that it seemed to be. I doubt that when we began supporting them, they told us “By the way, we’ll be targeting civilians!” They deny doing so (and I doubt that we believe them fully, but perhaps we’re trying to get them to stop).
Why might it be in our interests to work with a large coalition of Arab countries to stabilize Yemen? So that Yemen won’t be a failed state where hostile movements can thrive. The Houthis, supported by Iran, seem to be doing very well, but are they going to be able to govern Yemen? Syria isn’t doing very well under minority Shia governance.
It is not in our interest (for a lot of reasons discussed here before) to be sending our people to fight and occupy middle eastern countries. But to help an Arab coalition stabilize the situation on the Arab peninsula seems to be in our interest. Obviously, we should use our influence to minimize atrocities. From what I know about the situation, I wouldn’t be opposed to stopping our assistance, but I doubt seriously that the humanitarian picture would improve.
And I think we should re-evaluate whether it makes sense for us to reflexively support the Saudis in their conflict with other countries and peoples in the middle east. They’re not always in the right, and they do not always place our interests at the very top of their list of priorities.
I don’t think we do support them reflexively. I don’t know that it’s in our best interests to support them in Yemen, although I think it’s possible that it seemed to be. I doubt that when we began supporting them, they told us “By the way, we’ll be targeting civilians!” They deny doing so (and I doubt that we believe them fully, but perhaps we’re trying to get them to stop).
Why might it be in our interests to work with a large coalition of Arab countries to stabilize Yemen? So that Yemen won’t be a failed state where hostile movements can thrive. The Houthis, supported by Iran, seem to be doing very well, but are they going to be able to govern Yemen? Syria isn’t doing very well under minority Shia governance.
It is not in our interest (for a lot of reasons discussed here before) to be sending our people to fight and occupy middle eastern countries. But to help an Arab coalition stabilize the situation on the Arab peninsula seems to be in our interest. Obviously, we should use our influence to minimize atrocities. From what I know about the situation, I wouldn’t be opposed to stopping our assistance, but I doubt seriously that the humanitarian picture would improve.
And I think we should re-evaluate whether it makes sense for us to reflexively support the Saudis in their conflict with other countries and peoples in the middle east. They’re not always in the right, and they do not always place our interests at the very top of their list of priorities.
I don’t think we do support them reflexively. I don’t know that it’s in our best interests to support them in Yemen, although I think it’s possible that it seemed to be. I doubt that when we began supporting them, they told us “By the way, we’ll be targeting civilians!” They deny doing so (and I doubt that we believe them fully, but perhaps we’re trying to get them to stop).
Why might it be in our interests to work with a large coalition of Arab countries to stabilize Yemen? So that Yemen won’t be a failed state where hostile movements can thrive. The Houthis, supported by Iran, seem to be doing very well, but are they going to be able to govern Yemen? Syria isn’t doing very well under minority Shia governance.
It is not in our interest (for a lot of reasons discussed here before) to be sending our people to fight and occupy middle eastern countries. But to help an Arab coalition stabilize the situation on the Arab peninsula seems to be in our interest. Obviously, we should use our influence to minimize atrocities. From what I know about the situation, I wouldn’t be opposed to stopping our assistance, but I doubt seriously that the humanitarian picture would improve.
If we give a homeless person food, and they go kill someone with their eating utensils, we assisted the homeless person in killing someone, and no amount of obfuscation or equivocation will change that.
Since you meticulously chopped up the comment the comment you were responding to all the way to where you were addressing half a sentence, allow me to unhelpfully pretend you were acting in good faith:
As DJ rather more succinctly points out, there’s no reason to make extremely loosely analogous analogies about feeding someone IOT discuss direct and focused military support, and when you repeatedly insist on doing things like that, it severely undermines your credibility on the subject and makes it close to impossible to take anything you say requiring any amount of faith or supposition seriously.
If we give a homeless person food, and they go kill someone with their eating utensils, we assisted the homeless person in killing someone, and no amount of obfuscation or equivocation will change that.
Since you meticulously chopped up the comment the comment you were responding to all the way to where you were addressing half a sentence, allow me to unhelpfully pretend you were acting in good faith:
As DJ rather more succinctly points out, there’s no reason to make extremely loosely analogous analogies about feeding someone IOT discuss direct and focused military support, and when you repeatedly insist on doing things like that, it severely undermines your credibility on the subject and makes it close to impossible to take anything you say requiring any amount of faith or supposition seriously.
If we give a homeless person food, and they go kill someone with their eating utensils, we assisted the homeless person in killing someone, and no amount of obfuscation or equivocation will change that.
Since you meticulously chopped up the comment the comment you were responding to all the way to where you were addressing half a sentence, allow me to unhelpfully pretend you were acting in good faith:
As DJ rather more succinctly points out, there’s no reason to make extremely loosely analogous analogies about feeding someone IOT discuss direct and focused military support, and when you repeatedly insist on doing things like that, it severely undermines your credibility on the subject and makes it close to impossible to take anything you say requiring any amount of faith or supposition seriously.
I am still waiting for Hollywood to beat down my door to get the movie rights for my own Viking age epic
On the sadly neglected topic of Viking age literature, has anyone read Paul Kingsnorth’s “The Wake”? I thought it was remarkable.
Ishiguro’s “The Buried Giant” was also excellent, in completely different ways.
I am still waiting for Hollywood to beat down my door to get the movie rights for my own Viking age epic
On the sadly neglected topic of Viking age literature, has anyone read Paul Kingsnorth’s “The Wake”? I thought it was remarkable.
Ishiguro’s “The Buried Giant” was also excellent, in completely different ways.
I am still waiting for Hollywood to beat down my door to get the movie rights for my own Viking age epic
On the sadly neglected topic of Viking age literature, has anyone read Paul Kingsnorth’s “The Wake”? I thought it was remarkable.
Ishiguro’s “The Buried Giant” was also excellent, in completely different ways.
has anyone read Paul Kingsnorth’s “The Wake”?
yeah. i loved it. and then Amazon suggested “Riddley Walker”, which was great too, for similar reasons.
Ishiguro’s “The Buried Giant” was also excellent
i couldn’t get through that. didn’t much like the author’s style.
has anyone read Paul Kingsnorth’s “The Wake”?
yeah. i loved it. and then Amazon suggested “Riddley Walker”, which was great too, for similar reasons.
Ishiguro’s “The Buried Giant” was also excellent
i couldn’t get through that. didn’t much like the author’s style.
has anyone read Paul Kingsnorth’s “The Wake”?
yeah. i loved it. and then Amazon suggested “Riddley Walker”, which was great too, for similar reasons.
Ishiguro’s “The Buried Giant” was also excellent
i couldn’t get through that. didn’t much like the author’s style.
Clutch has a song about Riddley Walker. Maybe I should check it out. It sounds like my kind of thing, just based on the lyrics. Now a thumbs-up from cleek.
Clutch has a song about Riddley Walker. Maybe I should check it out. It sounds like my kind of thing, just based on the lyrics. Now a thumbs-up from cleek.
Clutch has a song about Riddley Walker. Maybe I should check it out. It sounds like my kind of thing, just based on the lyrics. Now a thumbs-up from cleek.
Iran is going to remain a significant power in the region after oil revenues dry up in a couple of decades’ time. We should be trying to make them our allies. The same is not necessarily true of Saudi Arabia. In either respect.
Amen to that!
Not least because Iran at least has some secular traditions and experience. If they dump the theocracy, they at least have a domestic model to turn to. But the Saudis would bave to be reinventing themselves from scratch. Pretty clear which would be more likely to succeed, and sooner.
Iran is going to remain a significant power in the region after oil revenues dry up in a couple of decades’ time. We should be trying to make them our allies. The same is not necessarily true of Saudi Arabia. In either respect.
Amen to that!
Not least because Iran at least has some secular traditions and experience. If they dump the theocracy, they at least have a domestic model to turn to. But the Saudis would bave to be reinventing themselves from scratch. Pretty clear which would be more likely to succeed, and sooner.
Iran is going to remain a significant power in the region after oil revenues dry up in a couple of decades’ time. We should be trying to make them our allies. The same is not necessarily true of Saudi Arabia. In either respect.
Amen to that!
Not least because Iran at least has some secular traditions and experience. If they dump the theocracy, they at least have a domestic model to turn to. But the Saudis would bave to be reinventing themselves from scratch. Pretty clear which would be more likely to succeed, and sooner.
A Viking epic would be fun. Especially if someone looked at the Viking states in what is now Russia. (Side note, the Viking tribe which lead the way was the “Rus”. Hence the origin of the name “Russia.”) Everything from the building of Novgarod, to Viking raiders and traders. Could be really great.
A Viking epic would be fun. Especially if someone looked at the Viking states in what is now Russia. (Side note, the Viking tribe which lead the way was the “Rus”. Hence the origin of the name “Russia.”) Everything from the building of Novgarod, to Viking raiders and traders. Could be really great.
A Viking epic would be fun. Especially if someone looked at the Viking states in what is now Russia. (Side note, the Viking tribe which lead the way was the “Rus”. Hence the origin of the name “Russia.”) Everything from the building of Novgarod, to Viking raiders and traders. Could be really great.
But to help an Arab coalition stabilize the situation on the Arab peninsula seems to be in our interest.
This could be a legitimate “interest” but…
Is this ‘coalition’ stabilizing the situation or making things worse?
And I would tend to agree with Nigel and wj on altering our approach to Iran. Reflexively backing the Saudis is a mistake.
But to help an Arab coalition stabilize the situation on the Arab peninsula seems to be in our interest.
This could be a legitimate “interest” but…
Is this ‘coalition’ stabilizing the situation or making things worse?
And I would tend to agree with Nigel and wj on altering our approach to Iran. Reflexively backing the Saudis is a mistake.
But to help an Arab coalition stabilize the situation on the Arab peninsula seems to be in our interest.
This could be a legitimate “interest” but…
Is this ‘coalition’ stabilizing the situation or making things worse?
And I would tend to agree with Nigel and wj on altering our approach to Iran. Reflexively backing the Saudis is a mistake.
Wonderful as it might be to “stabilize the situation on the Arab peninsula,” is that really even an option? Short of a total military occupation by the Saudis or massive ethnic cleansing — assuming either of those is possible either. I submit that it is not.
In fact, I think the only way to achieve stability there is thru a period of extreme instability. E.g. an overthrow of the House of Saud, marginalization of the Wahabist clerics, and a few decades of civil war. Whether the price would be worth it in the long run, to us, is another question.
Wonderful as it might be to “stabilize the situation on the Arab peninsula,” is that really even an option? Short of a total military occupation by the Saudis or massive ethnic cleansing — assuming either of those is possible either. I submit that it is not.
In fact, I think the only way to achieve stability there is thru a period of extreme instability. E.g. an overthrow of the House of Saud, marginalization of the Wahabist clerics, and a few decades of civil war. Whether the price would be worth it in the long run, to us, is another question.
Wonderful as it might be to “stabilize the situation on the Arab peninsula,” is that really even an option? Short of a total military occupation by the Saudis or massive ethnic cleansing — assuming either of those is possible either. I submit that it is not.
In fact, I think the only way to achieve stability there is thru a period of extreme instability. E.g. an overthrow of the House of Saud, marginalization of the Wahabist clerics, and a few decades of civil war. Whether the price would be worth it in the long run, to us, is another question.
It’s not quite Hollywood, but it is pretty damn entertaining (depending on your tolerance for the fairly graphic depiction of violence involving axes and swords…):
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2306299/?ref_=fn_al_tt_4
There’s also this recent BBC effort:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4179452/?ref_=nv_sr_1
(which is not entirely univalent, too.)
It’s not quite Hollywood, but it is pretty damn entertaining (depending on your tolerance for the fairly graphic depiction of violence involving axes and swords…):
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2306299/?ref_=fn_al_tt_4
There’s also this recent BBC effort:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4179452/?ref_=nv_sr_1
(which is not entirely univalent, too.)
It’s not quite Hollywood, but it is pretty damn entertaining (depending on your tolerance for the fairly graphic depiction of violence involving axes and swords…):
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2306299/?ref_=fn_al_tt_4
There’s also this recent BBC effort:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4179452/?ref_=nv_sr_1
(which is not entirely univalent, too.)
Is this ‘coalition’ stabilizing the situation or making things worse?
Clearly a good question, and one that the coalition partners would probably answer with a “that’s what we’re hoping for”.
Wonderful as it might be to “stabilize the situation on the Arab peninsula,” is that really even an option?
Beyond the reach of my crystal ball. We are trying. That’s what I think our government should be doing. Trying.
All of this work is very tough, especially since our own government is so divided. Hartmut is correct when he says: “With a different guy in the WH we would probably seriously discuss by now when (not if) the US should declare war on Iran in defense of their Saudi ally.” We have dangerous, hard line people in Congress who can’t wait for the chance to bomb Iran. I think that part of our current foreign policy is designed to keep those voices as quiet as possible.
Is this ‘coalition’ stabilizing the situation or making things worse?
Clearly a good question, and one that the coalition partners would probably answer with a “that’s what we’re hoping for”.
Wonderful as it might be to “stabilize the situation on the Arab peninsula,” is that really even an option?
Beyond the reach of my crystal ball. We are trying. That’s what I think our government should be doing. Trying.
All of this work is very tough, especially since our own government is so divided. Hartmut is correct when he says: “With a different guy in the WH we would probably seriously discuss by now when (not if) the US should declare war on Iran in defense of their Saudi ally.” We have dangerous, hard line people in Congress who can’t wait for the chance to bomb Iran. I think that part of our current foreign policy is designed to keep those voices as quiet as possible.
Is this ‘coalition’ stabilizing the situation or making things worse?
Clearly a good question, and one that the coalition partners would probably answer with a “that’s what we’re hoping for”.
Wonderful as it might be to “stabilize the situation on the Arab peninsula,” is that really even an option?
Beyond the reach of my crystal ball. We are trying. That’s what I think our government should be doing. Trying.
All of this work is very tough, especially since our own government is so divided. Hartmut is correct when he says: “With a different guy in the WH we would probably seriously discuss by now when (not if) the US should declare war on Iran in defense of their Saudi ally.” We have dangerous, hard line people in Congress who can’t wait for the chance to bomb Iran. I think that part of our current foreign policy is designed to keep those voices as quiet as possible.
In fact, I think the only way to achieve stability there is thru a period of extreme instability. E.g. an overthrow of the House of Saud, marginalization of the Wahabist clerics, and a few decades of civil war. Whether the price would be worth it in the long run, to us, is another question.
The price may well be another World War. I definitely don’t think the price would be worth it.
In fact, I think the only way to achieve stability there is thru a period of extreme instability. E.g. an overthrow of the House of Saud, marginalization of the Wahabist clerics, and a few decades of civil war. Whether the price would be worth it in the long run, to us, is another question.
The price may well be another World War. I definitely don’t think the price would be worth it.
In fact, I think the only way to achieve stability there is thru a period of extreme instability. E.g. an overthrow of the House of Saud, marginalization of the Wahabist clerics, and a few decades of civil war. Whether the price would be worth it in the long run, to us, is another question.
The price may well be another World War. I definitely don’t think the price would be worth it.
was going to mention “Vikings” (Nigel’s first link). Mrs and i just started watching it over the holidays. we’re only two episodes in, but it’s fun so far. lots of chopping and stabbing and clubbing !
i have no idea if it’s historically accurate, but it makes Viking life look pretty grim.
was going to mention “Vikings” (Nigel’s first link). Mrs and i just started watching it over the holidays. we’re only two episodes in, but it’s fun so far. lots of chopping and stabbing and clubbing !
i have no idea if it’s historically accurate, but it makes Viking life look pretty grim.
was going to mention “Vikings” (Nigel’s first link). Mrs and i just started watching it over the holidays. we’re only two episodes in, but it’s fun so far. lots of chopping and stabbing and clubbing !
i have no idea if it’s historically accurate, but it makes Viking life look pretty grim.
Viking life in movies (and literature) looks grim because they focus on fighting, looting, etc. And utterly ignore trading and every other non-violent pursuit. Sort of like the way the American West in the late 1800s is depicted as a constant run of gun fights and fighting rustlers — except worse.
Viking life in movies (and literature) looks grim because they focus on fighting, looting, etc. And utterly ignore trading and every other non-violent pursuit. Sort of like the way the American West in the late 1800s is depicted as a constant run of gun fights and fighting rustlers — except worse.
Viking life in movies (and literature) looks grim because they focus on fighting, looting, etc. And utterly ignore trading and every other non-violent pursuit. Sort of like the way the American West in the late 1800s is depicted as a constant run of gun fights and fighting rustlers — except worse.
The wife and I caught a couple episodes of “Vikings” early in season 2. We later binge-watched seasons 1 and 2 in anticipation of season 3, which we watched in more or less real time as episodes aired and we DVRed them. We’re fairly well hooked and waiting for season 4 to start after the football holidays are over.
The wife and I caught a couple episodes of “Vikings” early in season 2. We later binge-watched seasons 1 and 2 in anticipation of season 3, which we watched in more or less real time as episodes aired and we DVRed them. We’re fairly well hooked and waiting for season 4 to start after the football holidays are over.
The wife and I caught a couple episodes of “Vikings” early in season 2. We later binge-watched seasons 1 and 2 in anticipation of season 3, which we watched in more or less real time as episodes aired and we DVRed them. We’re fairly well hooked and waiting for season 4 to start after the football holidays are over.
Kirk Douglas was my favorite Viking, especially when the eagle chewed his eye out in the beginning of the movie.
Ernest Borgnine made for the kind of guy you’d expect to meet if the Vikings came ashore. Vicious, fearless. Slash first, as questions later.
Tony Curtis wasn’t bad in the movie, but he had skinny, girlish legs (not that there is anything wrong with that) that didn’t quite live up to the Viking image.
It was a short tunic problem methinks. Curtis had the same problem in “Spartacus” as Antoninus, for whom Olivier’s Crassus had the hots.
I visited the excavated remains of a Viking village on an island in the Baltic Sea years ago and the structures were small and mean.
Tiny people. Probably bored crapless after those long ocean voyages. Drying fish day after day. Sewing wombat pelts together for those natty, sleeveless sweater vests they wear to keep out the chill.
The Swedish guide kept referring to the “Veekings”. These Veekings, I wondered, they can’t be the same ferocious race as the VIKINGS of lore.
The Veekings?
Sounds more like the neighbors stopping over for meat loaf on a Saturday night.
“My Gosh, honey, here come the Veekings! Get the good placemats out that your mother gave us last Christmas. Looks like they’ve brought their own cutlery.”
The Comanche would have made short work of them, unless of course the Comanche were distant descendants.
Kirk Douglas was my favorite Viking, especially when the eagle chewed his eye out in the beginning of the movie.
Ernest Borgnine made for the kind of guy you’d expect to meet if the Vikings came ashore. Vicious, fearless. Slash first, as questions later.
Tony Curtis wasn’t bad in the movie, but he had skinny, girlish legs (not that there is anything wrong with that) that didn’t quite live up to the Viking image.
It was a short tunic problem methinks. Curtis had the same problem in “Spartacus” as Antoninus, for whom Olivier’s Crassus had the hots.
I visited the excavated remains of a Viking village on an island in the Baltic Sea years ago and the structures were small and mean.
Tiny people. Probably bored crapless after those long ocean voyages. Drying fish day after day. Sewing wombat pelts together for those natty, sleeveless sweater vests they wear to keep out the chill.
The Swedish guide kept referring to the “Veekings”. These Veekings, I wondered, they can’t be the same ferocious race as the VIKINGS of lore.
The Veekings?
Sounds more like the neighbors stopping over for meat loaf on a Saturday night.
“My Gosh, honey, here come the Veekings! Get the good placemats out that your mother gave us last Christmas. Looks like they’ve brought their own cutlery.”
The Comanche would have made short work of them, unless of course the Comanche were distant descendants.
Kirk Douglas was my favorite Viking, especially when the eagle chewed his eye out in the beginning of the movie.
Ernest Borgnine made for the kind of guy you’d expect to meet if the Vikings came ashore. Vicious, fearless. Slash first, as questions later.
Tony Curtis wasn’t bad in the movie, but he had skinny, girlish legs (not that there is anything wrong with that) that didn’t quite live up to the Viking image.
It was a short tunic problem methinks. Curtis had the same problem in “Spartacus” as Antoninus, for whom Olivier’s Crassus had the hots.
I visited the excavated remains of a Viking village on an island in the Baltic Sea years ago and the structures were small and mean.
Tiny people. Probably bored crapless after those long ocean voyages. Drying fish day after day. Sewing wombat pelts together for those natty, sleeveless sweater vests they wear to keep out the chill.
The Swedish guide kept referring to the “Veekings”. These Veekings, I wondered, they can’t be the same ferocious race as the VIKINGS of lore.
The Veekings?
Sounds more like the neighbors stopping over for meat loaf on a Saturday night.
“My Gosh, honey, here come the Veekings! Get the good placemats out that your mother gave us last Christmas. Looks like they’ve brought their own cutlery.”
The Comanche would have made short work of them, unless of course the Comanche were distant descendants.
A good friend recently went to Sweden, to visit family on her maternal side whom she had never met. Her grandmother came to the US as a young woman.
She flew to one of the big cities, probably Stockholm, then drove five hours north. This was just last October, it was pretty cold, and the days were getting pretty short.
After she and about a hundred seventeen long-lost cousins finished feasting on moose (roast at 100 degrees for 10 hours, then soak in brine for 5 more), she went to the home of one of her uncles.
Uncle lives on his own in a cabin with no running water and no heat other than a fireplace that he fuels with wood he cuts himself.
Uncle is in his 90’s, and apparently enjoys his carefree rural lifestyle. He has no interest in moving to town.
Vikings, Veekings, whatever. I wouldn’t want to fight them.
A good friend recently went to Sweden, to visit family on her maternal side whom she had never met. Her grandmother came to the US as a young woman.
She flew to one of the big cities, probably Stockholm, then drove five hours north. This was just last October, it was pretty cold, and the days were getting pretty short.
After she and about a hundred seventeen long-lost cousins finished feasting on moose (roast at 100 degrees for 10 hours, then soak in brine for 5 more), she went to the home of one of her uncles.
Uncle lives on his own in a cabin with no running water and no heat other than a fireplace that he fuels with wood he cuts himself.
Uncle is in his 90’s, and apparently enjoys his carefree rural lifestyle. He has no interest in moving to town.
Vikings, Veekings, whatever. I wouldn’t want to fight them.
A good friend recently went to Sweden, to visit family on her maternal side whom she had never met. Her grandmother came to the US as a young woman.
She flew to one of the big cities, probably Stockholm, then drove five hours north. This was just last October, it was pretty cold, and the days were getting pretty short.
After she and about a hundred seventeen long-lost cousins finished feasting on moose (roast at 100 degrees for 10 hours, then soak in brine for 5 more), she went to the home of one of her uncles.
Uncle lives on his own in a cabin with no running water and no heat other than a fireplace that he fuels with wood he cuts himself.
Uncle is in his 90’s, and apparently enjoys his carefree rural lifestyle. He has no interest in moving to town.
Vikings, Veekings, whatever. I wouldn’t want to fight them.
Uncle lives on his own in a cabin with no running water and no heat other than a fireplace that he fuels with wood he cuts himself.
Am I the only one who reads this and thinks of the Off-Grid folks who turn up on the Railroad Alaska TV series? To my mind, these folks are crazy; no accounting for taste, I guess.
Uncle lives on his own in a cabin with no running water and no heat other than a fireplace that he fuels with wood he cuts himself.
Am I the only one who reads this and thinks of the Off-Grid folks who turn up on the Railroad Alaska TV series? To my mind, these folks are crazy; no accounting for taste, I guess.
Uncle lives on his own in a cabin with no running water and no heat other than a fireplace that he fuels with wood he cuts himself.
Am I the only one who reads this and thinks of the Off-Grid folks who turn up on the Railroad Alaska TV series? To my mind, these folks are crazy; no accounting for taste, I guess.
Vikings, Veekings, whatever. I wouldn’t want to fight them.
Especially not on their territory. Brrrr.
Vikings, Veekings, whatever. I wouldn’t want to fight them.
Especially not on their territory. Brrrr.
Vikings, Veekings, whatever. I wouldn’t want to fight them.
Especially not on their territory. Brrrr.
Oh, the Veekings are a hardy sort, no doubt. But it was like finding out Paul Bunyan’s mother referred to him as Beaver Cleaver. Too much “eek” with the long “e”.
Carefree? Not so much. Wiry and dirty fighters, no doubt.
Though I could see ending up as a 90-year old geezer off the grid in a cabin cutting my own wood and chasing human varmints off my premises with a shot gun while wearing only long johns with a trap door in the behind, dag nab it.
Can you get WIFI or would that spoil the off-the-gridness? I could do without the Cheetos and jerky, unlike the tough guys in Oregon are asking their mothers to send them through the oppressive U.S. government mail system to tide them over to the spring melt.
Larison:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/why-should-we-want-to-keep-the-saudis/
I’d lay even odds that the Bush family and the neo-conservative cult hankering for chaos are heavily involved and influencing this recent Saudi behavior vis a vis Iran, given the contempt for Barack Obama the Kingdom shares with Israel and the pig filth Republican Party, and given their mutual interests in elevating the latest dumb shit Bush scion into a position to further destroy the nation.
Just more of the traitorous conservative habit of derailing and sabotaging standing American foreign and domestic policy, but I will say this for the Saudis, at least they have the guts to execute the traitors in their midst.
I’ve no brief for the Iranians, but keeping nuclear weapons out of their arsenal without blowing them to Kingdom come seems a decent alternative to me.
Preventing the Saudis from “borrowing” nukes from Pakistan seems like an important diplomatic initiative to take too.
Speaking of Jeb:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/01/04/swamped-the-political-scene-dexter-filkins
Read the quotes in the article from his fellow Republicans about dealing with this two-faced, arrogant piece of sh*t. Liberals can hardly get a word in edgewise.
He’s as ruthless, corrupt, and ideological as Trump, Cruz and the other as*holes flanking him in the primaries.
He’s perfectly capable of the murder and war crimes his primary opponents favor and brag about, both domestically and in foreign endeavors.
I noticed Clinton had a rude heckler at one of her fetes the other day. No Democrats/liberals, being the politically correct types, rushed over to knock the woman to the ground and kick the stuffing out of her, which seems to be accepted behavior among the racist Tea Party types frequenting Trump’s rallies and other right wing candidates’ public forums.
Oregon: I have a plan.
It resembles Ted Nugent’s and the right wing’s plan for me and most of you, except that the music will be better.
And there is nothing politically correct about it, which should please republicans.
Oh, the Veekings are a hardy sort, no doubt. But it was like finding out Paul Bunyan’s mother referred to him as Beaver Cleaver. Too much “eek” with the long “e”.
Carefree? Not so much. Wiry and dirty fighters, no doubt.
Though I could see ending up as a 90-year old geezer off the grid in a cabin cutting my own wood and chasing human varmints off my premises with a shot gun while wearing only long johns with a trap door in the behind, dag nab it.
Can you get WIFI or would that spoil the off-the-gridness? I could do without the Cheetos and jerky, unlike the tough guys in Oregon are asking their mothers to send them through the oppressive U.S. government mail system to tide them over to the spring melt.
Larison:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/why-should-we-want-to-keep-the-saudis/
I’d lay even odds that the Bush family and the neo-conservative cult hankering for chaos are heavily involved and influencing this recent Saudi behavior vis a vis Iran, given the contempt for Barack Obama the Kingdom shares with Israel and the pig filth Republican Party, and given their mutual interests in elevating the latest dumb shit Bush scion into a position to further destroy the nation.
Just more of the traitorous conservative habit of derailing and sabotaging standing American foreign and domestic policy, but I will say this for the Saudis, at least they have the guts to execute the traitors in their midst.
I’ve no brief for the Iranians, but keeping nuclear weapons out of their arsenal without blowing them to Kingdom come seems a decent alternative to me.
Preventing the Saudis from “borrowing” nukes from Pakistan seems like an important diplomatic initiative to take too.
Speaking of Jeb:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/01/04/swamped-the-political-scene-dexter-filkins
Read the quotes in the article from his fellow Republicans about dealing with this two-faced, arrogant piece of sh*t. Liberals can hardly get a word in edgewise.
He’s as ruthless, corrupt, and ideological as Trump, Cruz and the other as*holes flanking him in the primaries.
He’s perfectly capable of the murder and war crimes his primary opponents favor and brag about, both domestically and in foreign endeavors.
I noticed Clinton had a rude heckler at one of her fetes the other day. No Democrats/liberals, being the politically correct types, rushed over to knock the woman to the ground and kick the stuffing out of her, which seems to be accepted behavior among the racist Tea Party types frequenting Trump’s rallies and other right wing candidates’ public forums.
Oregon: I have a plan.
It resembles Ted Nugent’s and the right wing’s plan for me and most of you, except that the music will be better.
And there is nothing politically correct about it, which should please republicans.
Oh, the Veekings are a hardy sort, no doubt. But it was like finding out Paul Bunyan’s mother referred to him as Beaver Cleaver. Too much “eek” with the long “e”.
Carefree? Not so much. Wiry and dirty fighters, no doubt.
Though I could see ending up as a 90-year old geezer off the grid in a cabin cutting my own wood and chasing human varmints off my premises with a shot gun while wearing only long johns with a trap door in the behind, dag nab it.
Can you get WIFI or would that spoil the off-the-gridness? I could do without the Cheetos and jerky, unlike the tough guys in Oregon are asking their mothers to send them through the oppressive U.S. government mail system to tide them over to the spring melt.
Larison:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/why-should-we-want-to-keep-the-saudis/
I’d lay even odds that the Bush family and the neo-conservative cult hankering for chaos are heavily involved and influencing this recent Saudi behavior vis a vis Iran, given the contempt for Barack Obama the Kingdom shares with Israel and the pig filth Republican Party, and given their mutual interests in elevating the latest dumb shit Bush scion into a position to further destroy the nation.
Just more of the traitorous conservative habit of derailing and sabotaging standing American foreign and domestic policy, but I will say this for the Saudis, at least they have the guts to execute the traitors in their midst.
I’ve no brief for the Iranians, but keeping nuclear weapons out of their arsenal without blowing them to Kingdom come seems a decent alternative to me.
Preventing the Saudis from “borrowing” nukes from Pakistan seems like an important diplomatic initiative to take too.
Speaking of Jeb:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/01/04/swamped-the-political-scene-dexter-filkins
Read the quotes in the article from his fellow Republicans about dealing with this two-faced, arrogant piece of sh*t. Liberals can hardly get a word in edgewise.
He’s as ruthless, corrupt, and ideological as Trump, Cruz and the other as*holes flanking him in the primaries.
He’s perfectly capable of the murder and war crimes his primary opponents favor and brag about, both domestically and in foreign endeavors.
I noticed Clinton had a rude heckler at one of her fetes the other day. No Democrats/liberals, being the politically correct types, rushed over to knock the woman to the ground and kick the stuffing out of her, which seems to be accepted behavior among the racist Tea Party types frequenting Trump’s rallies and other right wing candidates’ public forums.
Oregon: I have a plan.
It resembles Ted Nugent’s and the right wing’s plan for me and most of you, except that the music will be better.
And there is nothing politically correct about it, which should please republicans.
Nugent’s plan:
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2015/12/05/ted-nugent-suggests-americans-should-cleanse-the-country-of-subhuman-liberals-video/
Nugent’s plan:
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2015/12/05/ted-nugent-suggests-americans-should-cleanse-the-country-of-subhuman-liberals-video/
Nugent’s plan:
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2015/12/05/ted-nugent-suggests-americans-should-cleanse-the-country-of-subhuman-liberals-video/
Oregon: I have a plan.
Turn off the water and don’t allow any pizza deliveries.
Let them stay as long as they like.
Oregon: I have a plan.
Turn off the water and don’t allow any pizza deliveries.
Let them stay as long as they like.
Oregon: I have a plan.
Turn off the water and don’t allow any pizza deliveries.
Let them stay as long as they like.
Let them stay as long as they like.
charge them per-day rental as if they’d rented the whole park our for a private party.
they’re depriving all other citizens of the use of public lands, after all.
Let them stay as long as they like.
charge them per-day rental as if they’d rented the whole park our for a private party.
they’re depriving all other citizens of the use of public lands, after all.
Let them stay as long as they like.
charge them per-day rental as if they’d rented the whole park our for a private party.
they’re depriving all other citizens of the use of public lands, after all.
Agree with cutting off food deliveries. Electricity, too. And a WiFi/cell phone jammer seems reasonable as well.
But better to leave the water turned on.** Otherwise, they stop flushing, and somebody has a (worse) stinking mess to clean up after they leave.
** If it was mid-summer, and somewhere that actually gets hot, that might be another story.
Agree with cutting off food deliveries. Electricity, too. And a WiFi/cell phone jammer seems reasonable as well.
But better to leave the water turned on.** Otherwise, they stop flushing, and somebody has a (worse) stinking mess to clean up after they leave.
** If it was mid-summer, and somewhere that actually gets hot, that might be another story.
Agree with cutting off food deliveries. Electricity, too. And a WiFi/cell phone jammer seems reasonable as well.
But better to leave the water turned on.** Otherwise, they stop flushing, and somebody has a (worse) stinking mess to clean up after they leave.
** If it was mid-summer, and somewhere that actually gets hot, that might be another story.
I can recommend these two “Viking” films made in Iceland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Shadow_of_the_Raven
Unfortunately only short clips seem to be available online. The first and third part of the trilogy are imo to be valued less.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw:_The_Saga_of_Gisli
It can be found on youtube with English subtitles e.g. here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yahCfYMs62Y
Also interesting is “The Prince of Jutland” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_Jutland provided you get the European cut (I hear the American version leaves out a few juicy bits). It’s based on the medieval Danish source for Hamlet in the Gesta Danorum.
I can recommend these two “Viking” films made in Iceland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Shadow_of_the_Raven
Unfortunately only short clips seem to be available online. The first and third part of the trilogy are imo to be valued less.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw:_The_Saga_of_Gisli
It can be found on youtube with English subtitles e.g. here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yahCfYMs62Y
Also interesting is “The Prince of Jutland” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_Jutland provided you get the European cut (I hear the American version leaves out a few juicy bits). It’s based on the medieval Danish source for Hamlet in the Gesta Danorum.
I can recommend these two “Viking” films made in Iceland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Shadow_of_the_Raven
Unfortunately only short clips seem to be available online. The first and third part of the trilogy are imo to be valued less.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw:_The_Saga_of_Gisli
It can be found on youtube with English subtitles e.g. here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yahCfYMs62Y
Also interesting is “The Prince of Jutland” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_Jutland provided you get the European cut (I hear the American version leaves out a few juicy bits). It’s based on the medieval Danish source for Hamlet in the Gesta Danorum.
Has anyone read the trilogy Kristin Lavransdatter, by Sigrid Undset? The author won a Nobel prize for the book in 1928. I’m not sure the work would have won by today’s literary standards, but it’s really fun to read, particularly the first and last books. That said, I think I must have read the first translation which I see has been criticized, because a translation that has received more favorable reviews was published in 2005. I just put the new one on my to read list.
Has anyone read the trilogy Kristin Lavransdatter, by Sigrid Undset? The author won a Nobel prize for the book in 1928. I’m not sure the work would have won by today’s literary standards, but it’s really fun to read, particularly the first and last books. That said, I think I must have read the first translation which I see has been criticized, because a translation that has received more favorable reviews was published in 2005. I just put the new one on my to read list.
Has anyone read the trilogy Kristin Lavransdatter, by Sigrid Undset? The author won a Nobel prize for the book in 1928. I’m not sure the work would have won by today’s literary standards, but it’s really fun to read, particularly the first and last books. That said, I think I must have read the first translation which I see has been criticized, because a translation that has received more favorable reviews was published in 2005. I just put the new one on my to read list.
You know you’re a patriot when your militia takes over a bird sanctuary
https://leerentz.wordpress.com/2009/05/12/malheur-in-april/
You know you’re a patriot when your militia takes over a bird sanctuary
https://leerentz.wordpress.com/2009/05/12/malheur-in-april/
You know you’re a patriot when your militia takes over a bird sanctuary
https://leerentz.wordpress.com/2009/05/12/malheur-in-april/
Provisional. I might let pizzas in. Poisoned ones. Hmmm. Poison the water supply too, but I’m getting ahead of myself.
This guy agrees with Russell and he seems to know the area and the people putting up with the seditionists:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/01/04/midday-balloon-juice-bunker-standoff-update-day-3/
Charles Pierce takes a harsher line, which I agree with, but it doesn’t have enough, I don’t know, election-year fireworks to it, like all of the stunts the paramilitary wings of the Republican Party pull with increasing frequency leading up to elections in this country.
I want these clowns’ melodramatic dreams to be realized in Technicolor and filmed via drone. More details later.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a40914/oregon-bundy-militia/
Let’s remember, if these guys were Native Americans or Black Lives Matter and unarmed and had taken over a private or public structure and sang kumbaya deep into the first night, they’d already be dead in this country.
The same Oaf Keepers and Bundy fellators would show up to help the government gun them down.
Shot in the back, they would be, like so many innocents over the past couple of years and going back pretty far.
The radical right-wing gun nuts are coddled. They’ve been humored. Indulged, as bullies are in this country … for a time, until they aren’t any more.
They threaten and intimidate the public with the constant presence of deadly force.
I was reading the other day that with the open carry nonsense in Texas, now at the State Capital in Austin, Texas, those with permits and guns sail through the express security line and into the building with barely a glance and a flash of their ID, while the majority of the public, unarmed and with equal business to be done in those hallowed halls, undergo time-wasting searches and questioning.
Weapon? Good to go, be on your way. Roast beef sandwich? Wait just a doggone minute there buster. You got some kind of beef with one of our public servants misspending our tax money? Over to the side there for a closer look and a conversation. What is that … mayo on there and rye? You can’t fool me. What if that thing went off and hurt someone?
Maybe the latter should be made to carry a Texas gummint permit to carry nothing, or carry a nail file, or a fountain pen, or even to show up in clothes, or for carrying a ham sandwich, ya know, dangerous objects — concealed ham sandwiches designed for combat and assassination — unlike firearms, which have never been known to harm a soul.
That is some f*cked up sick sh*t foisted on America by unAmerican, anti-American filth.
Remington is being sued because of faulty triggers. It seems the triggers activate the gun without human intervention and bullets come out the other end of the thing and kill.
What’s the problem exactly?
The shooterless gun. Just like the driverless car, which is extolled.
You’d think the shooterless gun would be held up as an efficiency booster. A productivity enhancement. Look Milton Friedman, no hands! No overhead! It’s all profit.
No, we’re told, it’s much better if the triggers are activated by the free willed finger of a person, maybe even spun a couple of times from the holster, and THEN someone else gets shot.
THAT’s freedom under the crazy-as*ed cloud of horsesh*t visible from space in this headquarters for exceptionalism some call a country.
Provisional. I might let pizzas in. Poisoned ones. Hmmm. Poison the water supply too, but I’m getting ahead of myself.
This guy agrees with Russell and he seems to know the area and the people putting up with the seditionists:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/01/04/midday-balloon-juice-bunker-standoff-update-day-3/
Charles Pierce takes a harsher line, which I agree with, but it doesn’t have enough, I don’t know, election-year fireworks to it, like all of the stunts the paramilitary wings of the Republican Party pull with increasing frequency leading up to elections in this country.
I want these clowns’ melodramatic dreams to be realized in Technicolor and filmed via drone. More details later.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a40914/oregon-bundy-militia/
Let’s remember, if these guys were Native Americans or Black Lives Matter and unarmed and had taken over a private or public structure and sang kumbaya deep into the first night, they’d already be dead in this country.
The same Oaf Keepers and Bundy fellators would show up to help the government gun them down.
Shot in the back, they would be, like so many innocents over the past couple of years and going back pretty far.
The radical right-wing gun nuts are coddled. They’ve been humored. Indulged, as bullies are in this country … for a time, until they aren’t any more.
They threaten and intimidate the public with the constant presence of deadly force.
I was reading the other day that with the open carry nonsense in Texas, now at the State Capital in Austin, Texas, those with permits and guns sail through the express security line and into the building with barely a glance and a flash of their ID, while the majority of the public, unarmed and with equal business to be done in those hallowed halls, undergo time-wasting searches and questioning.
Weapon? Good to go, be on your way. Roast beef sandwich? Wait just a doggone minute there buster. You got some kind of beef with one of our public servants misspending our tax money? Over to the side there for a closer look and a conversation. What is that … mayo on there and rye? You can’t fool me. What if that thing went off and hurt someone?
Maybe the latter should be made to carry a Texas gummint permit to carry nothing, or carry a nail file, or a fountain pen, or even to show up in clothes, or for carrying a ham sandwich, ya know, dangerous objects — concealed ham sandwiches designed for combat and assassination — unlike firearms, which have never been known to harm a soul.
That is some f*cked up sick sh*t foisted on America by unAmerican, anti-American filth.
Remington is being sued because of faulty triggers. It seems the triggers activate the gun without human intervention and bullets come out the other end of the thing and kill.
What’s the problem exactly?
The shooterless gun. Just like the driverless car, which is extolled.
You’d think the shooterless gun would be held up as an efficiency booster. A productivity enhancement. Look Milton Friedman, no hands! No overhead! It’s all profit.
No, we’re told, it’s much better if the triggers are activated by the free willed finger of a person, maybe even spun a couple of times from the holster, and THEN someone else gets shot.
THAT’s freedom under the crazy-as*ed cloud of horsesh*t visible from space in this headquarters for exceptionalism some call a country.
Provisional. I might let pizzas in. Poisoned ones. Hmmm. Poison the water supply too, but I’m getting ahead of myself.
This guy agrees with Russell and he seems to know the area and the people putting up with the seditionists:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/01/04/midday-balloon-juice-bunker-standoff-update-day-3/
Charles Pierce takes a harsher line, which I agree with, but it doesn’t have enough, I don’t know, election-year fireworks to it, like all of the stunts the paramilitary wings of the Republican Party pull with increasing frequency leading up to elections in this country.
I want these clowns’ melodramatic dreams to be realized in Technicolor and filmed via drone. More details later.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a40914/oregon-bundy-militia/
Let’s remember, if these guys were Native Americans or Black Lives Matter and unarmed and had taken over a private or public structure and sang kumbaya deep into the first night, they’d already be dead in this country.
The same Oaf Keepers and Bundy fellators would show up to help the government gun them down.
Shot in the back, they would be, like so many innocents over the past couple of years and going back pretty far.
The radical right-wing gun nuts are coddled. They’ve been humored. Indulged, as bullies are in this country … for a time, until they aren’t any more.
They threaten and intimidate the public with the constant presence of deadly force.
I was reading the other day that with the open carry nonsense in Texas, now at the State Capital in Austin, Texas, those with permits and guns sail through the express security line and into the building with barely a glance and a flash of their ID, while the majority of the public, unarmed and with equal business to be done in those hallowed halls, undergo time-wasting searches and questioning.
Weapon? Good to go, be on your way. Roast beef sandwich? Wait just a doggone minute there buster. You got some kind of beef with one of our public servants misspending our tax money? Over to the side there for a closer look and a conversation. What is that … mayo on there and rye? You can’t fool me. What if that thing went off and hurt someone?
Maybe the latter should be made to carry a Texas gummint permit to carry nothing, or carry a nail file, or a fountain pen, or even to show up in clothes, or for carrying a ham sandwich, ya know, dangerous objects — concealed ham sandwiches designed for combat and assassination — unlike firearms, which have never been known to harm a soul.
That is some f*cked up sick sh*t foisted on America by unAmerican, anti-American filth.
Remington is being sued because of faulty triggers. It seems the triggers activate the gun without human intervention and bullets come out the other end of the thing and kill.
What’s the problem exactly?
The shooterless gun. Just like the driverless car, which is extolled.
You’d think the shooterless gun would be held up as an efficiency booster. A productivity enhancement. Look Milton Friedman, no hands! No overhead! It’s all profit.
No, we’re told, it’s much better if the triggers are activated by the free willed finger of a person, maybe even spun a couple of times from the holster, and THEN someone else gets shot.
THAT’s freedom under the crazy-as*ed cloud of horsesh*t visible from space in this headquarters for exceptionalism some call a country.
The Malheur Wildlife Refuge:
http://www.fws.gov/refuge/malheur/
Founded by the well-known politically correct, commie tranvestite, Teddy Roosevelt.
Ya know, Redstate is having their annual hate fest in my fair city next August to kind of chew over how many Americans they hope to murder from 2017 on and whether the names of these victims should be listed in the Republican platform, or whether those pending murders should be kept secret until that first busy day of a murderous Republican President.
It’ll be at the downtown Hyatt.
I wonder what their response will be if I and my posse make our way in, traipse in as they say, and commandeer the snacks table for the duration exclusively for ourselves, the drinking fountains, and if they are as much fun as I think they are, the wet bar.
I’m quite sure while their womenfolk speed dial the gummint to hurry and come kill us (Watch out, he’s got a handful of shrimp, Shoot him!) their menfolk, not to be confused with Moe Lane or Veeking Erick Erickson, will be tugging their weapons from their ample waist holsters and generally being a*sholes and jagoffs, which license comes with the weapon.
The Malheur Wildlife Refuge:
http://www.fws.gov/refuge/malheur/
Founded by the well-known politically correct, commie tranvestite, Teddy Roosevelt.
Ya know, Redstate is having their annual hate fest in my fair city next August to kind of chew over how many Americans they hope to murder from 2017 on and whether the names of these victims should be listed in the Republican platform, or whether those pending murders should be kept secret until that first busy day of a murderous Republican President.
It’ll be at the downtown Hyatt.
I wonder what their response will be if I and my posse make our way in, traipse in as they say, and commandeer the snacks table for the duration exclusively for ourselves, the drinking fountains, and if they are as much fun as I think they are, the wet bar.
I’m quite sure while their womenfolk speed dial the gummint to hurry and come kill us (Watch out, he’s got a handful of shrimp, Shoot him!) their menfolk, not to be confused with Moe Lane or Veeking Erick Erickson, will be tugging their weapons from their ample waist holsters and generally being a*sholes and jagoffs, which license comes with the weapon.
The Malheur Wildlife Refuge:
http://www.fws.gov/refuge/malheur/
Founded by the well-known politically correct, commie tranvestite, Teddy Roosevelt.
Ya know, Redstate is having their annual hate fest in my fair city next August to kind of chew over how many Americans they hope to murder from 2017 on and whether the names of these victims should be listed in the Republican platform, or whether those pending murders should be kept secret until that first busy day of a murderous Republican President.
It’ll be at the downtown Hyatt.
I wonder what their response will be if I and my posse make our way in, traipse in as they say, and commandeer the snacks table for the duration exclusively for ourselves, the drinking fountains, and if they are as much fun as I think they are, the wet bar.
I’m quite sure while their womenfolk speed dial the gummint to hurry and come kill us (Watch out, he’s got a handful of shrimp, Shoot him!) their menfolk, not to be confused with Moe Lane or Veeking Erick Erickson, will be tugging their weapons from their ample waist holsters and generally being a*sholes and jagoffs, which license comes with the weapon.
I see Jeff got to Malheur before me. Thank you.
I see Jeff got to Malheur before me. Thank you.
I see Jeff got to Malheur before me. Thank you.
This guy …
http://www.bradleygreenburg.com/
… had a great question on the comment board at Balloon Juice regarding National Guard deployment at Malheur, to wit:
“When can the Guard go in and arrest these guys peacefully like they did at Kent State?”
This guy …
http://www.bradleygreenburg.com/
… had a great question on the comment board at Balloon Juice regarding National Guard deployment at Malheur, to wit:
“When can the Guard go in and arrest these guys peacefully like they did at Kent State?”
This guy …
http://www.bradleygreenburg.com/
… had a great question on the comment board at Balloon Juice regarding National Guard deployment at Malheur, to wit:
“When can the Guard go in and arrest these guys peacefully like they did at Kent State?”
Whenever stuff like the Malheur thing happens, I’m often at a loss to know how seriously it should be taken.
Is this a real threat to the rest of us? Are the folks involved interested in and/or capable of harming anyone or anything?
Or is it just more or less a clown show?
With the follow-on question being – does it need a serious response, or do the rest of us just roll our eyes and carry on?
Maybe put up some yellow tape so folks know that there’s an inconvenience to be avoided, just up ahead.
In this case, I’m leaning toward yellow tape and roll our eyes.
There are a number of things about the overall situation that are worthy of discussion. The takeover of what appears to be a bird-watching station – empty, because it was closed for the holiday – by a bunch of knucklehead publicity hounds is not among them.
Nobody wants anything to do with these guys. Even old man Bundy is scratching his head.
Make sure nobody wanders by, turn off the heat and water, and wait for them to get sick of playing commando. When they get tired of living on beef jerky and crapping in a can, they’ll go home.
Any response that takes them seriously is just playing their game.
That’s my take.
Whenever stuff like the Malheur thing happens, I’m often at a loss to know how seriously it should be taken.
Is this a real threat to the rest of us? Are the folks involved interested in and/or capable of harming anyone or anything?
Or is it just more or less a clown show?
With the follow-on question being – does it need a serious response, or do the rest of us just roll our eyes and carry on?
Maybe put up some yellow tape so folks know that there’s an inconvenience to be avoided, just up ahead.
In this case, I’m leaning toward yellow tape and roll our eyes.
There are a number of things about the overall situation that are worthy of discussion. The takeover of what appears to be a bird-watching station – empty, because it was closed for the holiday – by a bunch of knucklehead publicity hounds is not among them.
Nobody wants anything to do with these guys. Even old man Bundy is scratching his head.
Make sure nobody wanders by, turn off the heat and water, and wait for them to get sick of playing commando. When they get tired of living on beef jerky and crapping in a can, they’ll go home.
Any response that takes them seriously is just playing their game.
That’s my take.
Whenever stuff like the Malheur thing happens, I’m often at a loss to know how seriously it should be taken.
Is this a real threat to the rest of us? Are the folks involved interested in and/or capable of harming anyone or anything?
Or is it just more or less a clown show?
With the follow-on question being – does it need a serious response, or do the rest of us just roll our eyes and carry on?
Maybe put up some yellow tape so folks know that there’s an inconvenience to be avoided, just up ahead.
In this case, I’m leaning toward yellow tape and roll our eyes.
There are a number of things about the overall situation that are worthy of discussion. The takeover of what appears to be a bird-watching station – empty, because it was closed for the holiday – by a bunch of knucklehead publicity hounds is not among them.
Nobody wants anything to do with these guys. Even old man Bundy is scratching his head.
Make sure nobody wanders by, turn off the heat and water, and wait for them to get sick of playing commando. When they get tired of living on beef jerky and crapping in a can, they’ll go home.
Any response that takes them seriously is just playing their game.
That’s my take.
Once again, the Onion breaks it all down for us.
We’ve left the age of irony, and entered the age of farce.
Once again, the Onion breaks it all down for us.
We’ve left the age of irony, and entered the age of farce.
Once again, the Onion breaks it all down for us.
We’ve left the age of irony, and entered the age of farce.
As they say, russell, laughter is the best medicine.
As they say, russell, laughter is the best medicine.
As they say, russell, laughter is the best medicine.
Russell, while there is a lot to be said for your approach, I don’t like the end you suggest.
I think that, when they have packed up to go home, they should get arrested for something uninspiring: Littering, tresspassing, something along those lines. Maybe lots of counts, to keep them in jail for a while. But no counts of anything that might be validating. Show them up for the pathetic slobs that they are.
Russell, while there is a lot to be said for your approach, I don’t like the end you suggest.
I think that, when they have packed up to go home, they should get arrested for something uninspiring: Littering, tresspassing, something along those lines. Maybe lots of counts, to keep them in jail for a while. But no counts of anything that might be validating. Show them up for the pathetic slobs that they are.
Russell, while there is a lot to be said for your approach, I don’t like the end you suggest.
I think that, when they have packed up to go home, they should get arrested for something uninspiring: Littering, tresspassing, something along those lines. Maybe lots of counts, to keep them in jail for a while. But no counts of anything that might be validating. Show them up for the pathetic slobs that they are.
At some point, as their bags of pretzels and cases of energy drinks are depleted (I’m thinking it would funny if worse comes to worse and the shooting starts and their bullet-ridden carcasses are discovered and some of them have packages of uneaten Skittles squirreled away in their gunbelts) like ISIS running low on hostages who still have heads, these crack shots will shoot a pelican or two, or maybe bag a protected spotted owl for the purposes of lunch and their general hatred of living winged creatures.
To be sure, they appreciate a bird taxidermed and hung on the wall or arranged roasted on a plate, but the actual living gift flapping about in unceasing beauty …. alive .. is beyond their ken, unless back lit through a gun sight.
So, after some desperate man on man action, which shouldn’t be criticized or criminalized, which they will resort to because law enforcement refused their requests for women (not their wives and girlfriends, but their sisters) to be trucked in, they will tire of the revolutionary vaudeville and give themselves up, at which time they should be cuffed and marched into the back country and tied about 20 feet up against the trunks of trees, upside down, so the birds can peck and eat too.
All God’s creatures love them some viscera.
While they slowly expire and between their hoarse screams … a la The Onion … FOX News, various right-wing talk f*cks, and the Republican Presidential candidates are free to climb up and interview them and do photo-ops for their campaigns, with armed supervision of course so they don’t unshackle the perpetrators.
Should Grover Norquist show up to give them support, he’ll be asked to stay and he’ll get his own tree, and be nailed upside down, with his eyes pinned open and pantsless so his sweetbreads and other sweet bits are there for the pecking.
That wasn’t in MY plan but I’m flexible.
As to the rest of the details, my specially appointed task force is still working on those.
At some point, as their bags of pretzels and cases of energy drinks are depleted (I’m thinking it would funny if worse comes to worse and the shooting starts and their bullet-ridden carcasses are discovered and some of them have packages of uneaten Skittles squirreled away in their gunbelts) like ISIS running low on hostages who still have heads, these crack shots will shoot a pelican or two, or maybe bag a protected spotted owl for the purposes of lunch and their general hatred of living winged creatures.
To be sure, they appreciate a bird taxidermed and hung on the wall or arranged roasted on a plate, but the actual living gift flapping about in unceasing beauty …. alive .. is beyond their ken, unless back lit through a gun sight.
So, after some desperate man on man action, which shouldn’t be criticized or criminalized, which they will resort to because law enforcement refused their requests for women (not their wives and girlfriends, but their sisters) to be trucked in, they will tire of the revolutionary vaudeville and give themselves up, at which time they should be cuffed and marched into the back country and tied about 20 feet up against the trunks of trees, upside down, so the birds can peck and eat too.
All God’s creatures love them some viscera.
While they slowly expire and between their hoarse screams … a la The Onion … FOX News, various right-wing talk f*cks, and the Republican Presidential candidates are free to climb up and interview them and do photo-ops for their campaigns, with armed supervision of course so they don’t unshackle the perpetrators.
Should Grover Norquist show up to give them support, he’ll be asked to stay and he’ll get his own tree, and be nailed upside down, with his eyes pinned open and pantsless so his sweetbreads and other sweet bits are there for the pecking.
That wasn’t in MY plan but I’m flexible.
As to the rest of the details, my specially appointed task force is still working on those.
At some point, as their bags of pretzels and cases of energy drinks are depleted (I’m thinking it would funny if worse comes to worse and the shooting starts and their bullet-ridden carcasses are discovered and some of them have packages of uneaten Skittles squirreled away in their gunbelts) like ISIS running low on hostages who still have heads, these crack shots will shoot a pelican or two, or maybe bag a protected spotted owl for the purposes of lunch and their general hatred of living winged creatures.
To be sure, they appreciate a bird taxidermed and hung on the wall or arranged roasted on a plate, but the actual living gift flapping about in unceasing beauty …. alive .. is beyond their ken, unless back lit through a gun sight.
So, after some desperate man on man action, which shouldn’t be criticized or criminalized, which they will resort to because law enforcement refused their requests for women (not their wives and girlfriends, but their sisters) to be trucked in, they will tire of the revolutionary vaudeville and give themselves up, at which time they should be cuffed and marched into the back country and tied about 20 feet up against the trunks of trees, upside down, so the birds can peck and eat too.
All God’s creatures love them some viscera.
While they slowly expire and between their hoarse screams … a la The Onion … FOX News, various right-wing talk f*cks, and the Republican Presidential candidates are free to climb up and interview them and do photo-ops for their campaigns, with armed supervision of course so they don’t unshackle the perpetrators.
Should Grover Norquist show up to give them support, he’ll be asked to stay and he’ll get his own tree, and be nailed upside down, with his eyes pinned open and pantsless so his sweetbreads and other sweet bits are there for the pecking.
That wasn’t in MY plan but I’m flexible.
As to the rest of the details, my specially appointed task force is still working on those.
The Bundys and company apparently have their own ONION publication, except it’s literal. No humor accepted for publication. It’s called the Potato Head Chronicles:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/a-peek-into-subconscious-mind-of.html
The Bundys and company apparently have their own ONION publication, except it’s literal. No humor accepted for publication. It’s called the Potato Head Chronicles:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/a-peek-into-subconscious-mind-of.html
The Bundys and company apparently have their own ONION publication, except it’s literal. No humor accepted for publication. It’s called the Potato Head Chronicles:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/a-peek-into-subconscious-mind-of.html
Maybe the seditionists can be convinced to lay their weapons down and surrender and then Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton can greet them outside the visitor’s center with hugs and tears:
WASHINGTON MONTHLY:
“Finally, here’s a story about something that happened over the holidays that should have been national news. I don’t expect that I need to tell you why it wasn’t…no bleed, no lead.
A man with a semi-automatic assault rifle walked into a downtown Fayetteville church during a New Year’s Eve prayer service…”Can I help you?” the pastor asked the man. Wright, who is a 57-year-old retired soldier, said the man’s answer determined his next action.” If he was belligerent, I was going to tackle him,” said Wright, who is 6-foot-2 and 230 pounds. But the stranger was calm, and Wright took the weapon from him. He then patted him down, and the pastor summoned four strong deacons to embrace the disarmed man, in an effort to make him feel welcome. Wright then prayed for the man, who fell to his knees and began crying.”
By the way, I don’t put a lot of stock in Cliven Bundy scratching his head over his sons’ behavior.
He’s just scratching. Very little cogitation or self-reflection going in inside that noggin.
Maybe the seditionists can be convinced to lay their weapons down and surrender and then Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton can greet them outside the visitor’s center with hugs and tears:
WASHINGTON MONTHLY:
“Finally, here’s a story about something that happened over the holidays that should have been national news. I don’t expect that I need to tell you why it wasn’t…no bleed, no lead.
A man with a semi-automatic assault rifle walked into a downtown Fayetteville church during a New Year’s Eve prayer service…”Can I help you?” the pastor asked the man. Wright, who is a 57-year-old retired soldier, said the man’s answer determined his next action.” If he was belligerent, I was going to tackle him,” said Wright, who is 6-foot-2 and 230 pounds. But the stranger was calm, and Wright took the weapon from him. He then patted him down, and the pastor summoned four strong deacons to embrace the disarmed man, in an effort to make him feel welcome. Wright then prayed for the man, who fell to his knees and began crying.”
By the way, I don’t put a lot of stock in Cliven Bundy scratching his head over his sons’ behavior.
He’s just scratching. Very little cogitation or self-reflection going in inside that noggin.
Maybe the seditionists can be convinced to lay their weapons down and surrender and then Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton can greet them outside the visitor’s center with hugs and tears:
WASHINGTON MONTHLY:
“Finally, here’s a story about something that happened over the holidays that should have been national news. I don’t expect that I need to tell you why it wasn’t…no bleed, no lead.
A man with a semi-automatic assault rifle walked into a downtown Fayetteville church during a New Year’s Eve prayer service…”Can I help you?” the pastor asked the man. Wright, who is a 57-year-old retired soldier, said the man’s answer determined his next action.” If he was belligerent, I was going to tackle him,” said Wright, who is 6-foot-2 and 230 pounds. But the stranger was calm, and Wright took the weapon from him. He then patted him down, and the pastor summoned four strong deacons to embrace the disarmed man, in an effort to make him feel welcome. Wright then prayed for the man, who fell to his knees and began crying.”
By the way, I don’t put a lot of stock in Cliven Bundy scratching his head over his sons’ behavior.
He’s just scratching. Very little cogitation or self-reflection going in inside that noggin.
I’ve posted this elsewhere on Fat Al Gore’s inter-tubes, but will repeat my suggestions for the Malheur situation here for your critical appraisal.
Tactic #1: a massive airdrop of skunk ‘perfume’ (use some of those fire-fighting air-tanker planes). After which, no security cordon is required, escapees will be freakin’ obvious, wherever they go.
Tactic #2: Pres. Obama official declares that Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is to be replaced by The Bundy Camp for the Micro-Dicked Criminally Insane. Signage to go up PDQ.
If those don’t work, shoot the fnckers.
I’ve posted this elsewhere on Fat Al Gore’s inter-tubes, but will repeat my suggestions for the Malheur situation here for your critical appraisal.
Tactic #1: a massive airdrop of skunk ‘perfume’ (use some of those fire-fighting air-tanker planes). After which, no security cordon is required, escapees will be freakin’ obvious, wherever they go.
Tactic #2: Pres. Obama official declares that Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is to be replaced by The Bundy Camp for the Micro-Dicked Criminally Insane. Signage to go up PDQ.
If those don’t work, shoot the fnckers.
I’ve posted this elsewhere on Fat Al Gore’s inter-tubes, but will repeat my suggestions for the Malheur situation here for your critical appraisal.
Tactic #1: a massive airdrop of skunk ‘perfume’ (use some of those fire-fighting air-tanker planes). After which, no security cordon is required, escapees will be freakin’ obvious, wherever they go.
Tactic #2: Pres. Obama official declares that Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is to be replaced by The Bundy Camp for the Micro-Dicked Criminally Insane. Signage to go up PDQ.
If those don’t work, shoot the fnckers.
Not much to say about Viking literature. I read some fantasy- level stuff by Rider Haggard and Poul Anderson years ago. And I liked the Norse mythology in Bullfinch.
Daniel Larison on why we shouldn’t care so much about the Saudis–
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-reckless-and-dangerous-saudi-government/
Not much to say about Viking literature. I read some fantasy- level stuff by Rider Haggard and Poul Anderson years ago. And I liked the Norse mythology in Bullfinch.
Daniel Larison on why we shouldn’t care so much about the Saudis–
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-reckless-and-dangerous-saudi-government/
Not much to say about Viking literature. I read some fantasy- level stuff by Rider Haggard and Poul Anderson years ago. And I liked the Norse mythology in Bullfinch.
Daniel Larison on why we shouldn’t care so much about the Saudis–
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-reckless-and-dangerous-saudi-government/
Larison is quite right.
The current Saudi leadership is reckless, and risks empowering their reckless counterparts in Iran.
The risk to the rest of us is the security of the Gulf oil supply. The Yemeni factions might not have the capacity to disrupt it, but the Iranians certainly do:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/12081550/Saudi-showdown-with-Iran-nears-danger-point-for-world-oil-markets.html
Larison is quite right.
The current Saudi leadership is reckless, and risks empowering their reckless counterparts in Iran.
The risk to the rest of us is the security of the Gulf oil supply. The Yemeni factions might not have the capacity to disrupt it, but the Iranians certainly do:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/12081550/Saudi-showdown-with-Iran-nears-danger-point-for-world-oil-markets.html
Larison is quite right.
The current Saudi leadership is reckless, and risks empowering their reckless counterparts in Iran.
The risk to the rest of us is the security of the Gulf oil supply. The Yemeni factions might not have the capacity to disrupt it, but the Iranians certainly do:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/12081550/Saudi-showdown-with-Iran-nears-danger-point-for-world-oil-markets.html