Suppose for a moment that ....

[Deleted]

Make love, not war.

Now where did I put my Tiger Rock?

[hifigator]

I thought it was "Make Rock, not War! What are we fighting for? Make Rock not war, Nobody cares!" ....


I don't even remember who did that song, but I do vaguely remember the song.

[The Stig]

Jun 26, 2008 10:48:23 GMT -5 hifigator said:

I also think you're pretty ignorant in saying that strong national security is a conservative position.

I think you are the ignorant one for making that statement. There can be little debate over the fact that conservatives are more concerned with national security. There can be little debate over the fact that conservatives tend to favor a strong military. Likewise, there can be zero debate that the military vote goes very strongly to the conservative/right/republican candidate by and large. I am expecting that your point was that a strong military and/or a stronger focus on military isn't necessarily the same as a stronger national security. If so, then we agree to disagree, but as to the literal interpretation, it is quite evident that I am right and you are wrong. In fact, very few would even begin to argue that much.

The bold part is the one bit you got right.

I wouldn't say that guns and bombs = national security is the literal interpretation of national security. National security is the simple measure of how safe a nation is from outside attack, and that takes into account a lot more factors than just military strength.

For example, I'd argue that Vanuatu has better national security than the United States, simply because nobody in their right minds would ever want to attack Vanuatu. Therefore, despite obviously having a much weaker military than the US, Vanuatu is safer from outside attack than the US.

I'm not arguing that the US should try to emulate Vanuatu (the security by obscurity that protects Vanuatu isn't a very realistic option for the US), I'm just trying to point out that national security is more than simple military strength. Military strength is a very important part of national security, but it's not the only part. You also have to take into account who your enemies are, how strong they are, and the strength and reliability of your allies.

I argue that the Bush Administration's unnecessarily blunt and forceful tactics weakened our national security by increasing the number of potential enemies to the US while decreasing the reliability of our allies by pushing them away. The head of the CIA's Bin Laden desk said that the Iraq war was the greatest gift Bin Laden ever received.

Now are you going to honestly tell me that giving gifts to Osama Bin Laden makes the United States safer?

[jerseyhoya34]

McCain flip-flopped again today on the Swift Boats. In 2004, they were "dishonest" according to McCain. In 2008, they're campaign spokespeople.

[hifigator]

Jun 30, 2008 19:10:04 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

McCain flip-flopped again today on the Swift Boats. In 2004, they were "dishonest" according to McCain. In 2008, they're campaign spokespeople.

All I know for sure is that I am not flip flopping on that one. My point in 2004 was that the Swiftboat Veterans that were outspoken in their criticisms of Kerry were portrayed by the media as outsiders with a political agenda. Kerry was meanwhile presented as a decorated war veteran. I said at the time that criticisms of his service were certainly debatable, but that the vocal opposition was not merely some political strategy. Were they against Kerry becoming President? Absolutely. In all likelihood, would they have been much less conspicuous were Kerry not a candidate? Most likely. But that isn't the same thing. Of course criticisms arise the more prominent a candidate is. Their disdain of Kerry however, didn't come from the campaign trail -- at least not exclusively or even primarily. Their disdain came from some 30 years earlier when a very young John Kerry threw a bunch of his fellow soldiers under the bus in senate hearings. Was he being 100% accurate in his testimony back then? I have no idea. But that is certainly the primary cause of the resentment that those particular swiftboat vets had of Kerry.

In that regard, once again the primarily liberal media should have been the target of intense criticism. I am not trying to take sides at all, but if the media was going to prop Kerry up as the war veteran and if they were going to feature and cover with a positive tone the words of fellow soldiers that supported Kerry, then it was totally unfair to at the same time paint this rather substantial group of veterans as some kind of off the beaten path kooks. Kerry made his decisions some 30 years earlier and must live with those consequences. The double standard was my primary concern, both then and now.


Stig: the comment about being a "gift to OBL" is certainly debatable. The main basis of the argument is that our actions have inspired and motivated others into becoming our enemies. While that has certainly happened on a minor scale at the very least, the overall effect remains seriously in doubt. Al-Queda had an international organization capable of carrying out multiple serious attacks across the globe. That CANNOT be denied. As a direct result of our military actions, that is no longer the case. That is all that I am saying. I agree with you that "security" isn't measured in military strength alone. But it is certainly a contributing factor. And for you to dismiss the fact that in this very volatile world, there hasn't been one single significant successful attack on the U.S. since 9/11, when there have been so many others during that time in many other parts of the world is just flat out silly in my mind. While I admit there is a time for diplomacy and that there are certainly times where peace can better be achieved by such diplomacy, I will argue with your blanket suggestion that we aren't any safer now than 9/11. How many successful attacks should we have had on us since 9/11 to be safer?

[The Stig]

Jul 1, 2008 15:40:42 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Stig: the comment about being a "gift to OBL" is certainly debatable. The main basis of the argument is that our actions have inspired and motivated others into becoming our enemies. While that has certainly happened on a minor scale at the very least, the overall effect remains seriously in doubt. Al-Queda had an international organization capable of carrying out multiple serious attacks across the globe. That CANNOT be denied. As a direct result of our military actions, that is no longer the case. That is all that I am saying. I agree with you that "security" isn't measured in military strength alone. But it is certainly a contributing factor. And for you to dismiss the fact that in this very volatile world, there hasn't been one single significant successful attack on the U.S. since 9/11, when there have been so many others during that time in many other parts of the world is just flat out silly in my mind. While I admit there is a time for diplomacy and that there are certainly times where peace can better be achieved by such diplomacy, I will argue with your blanket suggestion that we aren't any safer now than 9/11. How many successful attacks should we have had on us since 9/11 to be safer?

Read my post again: I wrote "Military strength is a very important part of national security." I'm not discounting the military, I'm just saying that it's not the one and only aspect of national security.

As far as the reduction in Al Qaeda's capabilities, it's debatable. I mentioned in another topic that Al Qadea has become very decentralized, so while we have certainly done a very good job at scattering and sidelining their central leadership, that doesn't mean we've dealt a big blow to radical Islamic terrorist groups. Worldwide, attacks by radical Islamic terrorists that take inspiration (if not orders) from Al Qaeda have increased dramatically, with most of the attacks coming in Iraq.

The success that we've had against Al Qaeda's leadership came in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Afghanistan was a completely different scenario - there we had an indisputably watertight reason to go in there, we had broad international support, and we had the sympathy (if not outright support) of the moderate Muslim community around the world. While the actual operations were botched to a degree (Operation Anaconda failed to capture Osama), that war was still the right thing to do, and made the US safer.

The reason why Iraq was a gift to Osama wasn't just the fact that it played straight into every bit of propaganda he's been using for the past decade. Iraq was a significant diversion of resources from the Afghanistan operation, which should have been the main conflict. Afghanistan was Al Qaeda's center of gravity, and anybody who's read their Clausewitz should know that diverting resources away from that is the biggest strategic blunder you can make in warfare. That strategic blunder was just as much of a gift to Osama as our cooperation with his propaganda and recruiting efforts.

[HoyaSinceBirth]

I agree I would argue but cannot prove that we would be safer if we had never gone into Iraq but still did everything else we've done to protect ourselves. we've been able to prevent attacks at home not because we invaded iraq but because we beefed up security at home.

[hifigator]

I think your argument is relatively sound and ultimately comes down to unprovable deductions. I would argue that we haven't as much created new terrorists as we have centralized them more into one area. And I'm not so sure that that isn't a good thing. In other words, I think the majority of those who have "become" terrorists in Iraq, were predisposed to do so anyway. Maybe we rushed it a bit though.

[The Stig]

I don't think the diversion of resources from the real fight against Al Qaeda (Afghanistan) is an unprovable deduction.

Were the terrorists in Iraq predisposed to become terrorists? Maybe, but if you want to argue about the causes of terrorism then we'll be arguing all year. But even if they do exist, they need something to trigger their violent tendencies. A hand grenade in your hand has the potential to kill you, but it's not going to do so unless you pull the pin. If we had confined our actions to Afghanistan, a lot of the people who have joined the radical Islamist cause would have never taken up arms against us, both in Iraq and abroad.

I understand that you can't conduct your entire foreign policy based on the fear that you might upset somebody. If Iraq had been a legitimate and immediate threat to our national security, or if they'd been actively assisting Al Qaeda, if they'd played an active role in 9/11, if they'd been doing anything like that, then I'd have supported an invasion despite the blowback consequences I've been talking about. The costs of the diversion of resources from Afghanistan and the increase in anti-Americanism would have been more than offset by the benefits of the elimination of a serious threat to national security. It would have been just like Afghanistan.

But in early 2003 Iraq was a well-contained and harmless annoyance. They had no part whatsoever in 9/11. They had no connections to terrorists - Saddam hated Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda hated Saddam. They were all bark and no bite. In terms of national security, the Iraq War hasn't given us any benefits. Therefore, the costs haven't been worth it.

[The Stig]

Jumping back a page or two, the BBC has compiled a nice list of policy U-turns by each candidate: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7474558.stm

[SirSaxa]

Jul 2, 2008 16:36:23 GMT -5 The Stig said:

I don't think the diversion of resources from the real fight against Al Qaeda (Afghanistan) is an unprovable deduction.

Were the terrorists in Iraq predisposed to become terrorists? Maybe, but if you want to argue about the causes of terrorism then we'll be arguing all year. But even if they do exist, they need something to trigger their violent tendencies. A hand grenade in your hand has the potential to kill you, but it's not going to do so unless you pull the pin. If we had confined our actions to Afghanistan, a lot of the people who have joined the radical Islamist cause would have never taken up arms against us, both in Iraq and abroad.

I understand that you can't conduct your entire foreign policy based on the fear that you might upset somebody. If Iraq had been a legitimate and immediate threat to our national security, or if they'd been actively assisting Al Qaeda, if they'd played an active role in 9/11, if they'd been doing anything like that, then I'd have supported an invasion despite the blowback consequences I've been talking about. The costs of the diversion of resources from Afghanistan and the increase in anti-Americanism would have been more than offset by the benefits of the elimination of a serious threat to national security. It would have been just like Afghanistan.

But in early 2003 Iraq was a well-contained and harmless annoyance. They had no part whatsoever in 9/11. They had no connections to terrorists - Saddam hated Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda hated Saddam. They were all bark and no bite. In terms of national security, the Iraq War hasn't given us any benefits. Therefore, the costs haven't been worth it.

Excellent post Stig.
And there has been quite a lot of testimony on capitol hill by Generals that the move to Iraq took away significant military resources from Iraq.

Now the Taliban is making a serious comeback in Afghanistan. And we never got Bin Laden and his top guys. And Bush is afraid to go after them in N. Pakistan, despite all that phony "Dead or Alive" rhetoric.

We had the support of the entire world when we went into Afghanistan, and lost almost all of it with the Iraq misadventure (along with thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqis). Clearly, that has made us far less secure, not more secure.

[SirSaxa]

The NY Times ran an excellent, thorough article on this subject about a week ago.

tinyurl.com/6mbrhf

A few excerpts are included below:

After the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush committed the nation to a “war on terrorism” and made the destruction of Mr. bin Laden’s network the top priority of his presidency. But it is increasingly clear that the Bush administration will leave office with Al Qaeda having successfully relocated its base from Afghanistan to Pakistan’s tribal areas, where it has rebuilt much of its ability to attack from the region and broadcast its messages to militants across the world.


Current and former military and intelligence officials said that the war in Iraq consistently diverted resources and high-level attention from the tribal areas. When American military and intelligence officials requested additional Predator drones to survey the tribal areas, they were told no drones were available because they had been sent to Iraq.


“We had to put people out in the field who had less than ideal levels of experience,” one former senior C.I.A. official said. “But there wasn’t much to choose from.”

One reason for this, according to two former intelligence officials directly involved in the Qaeda hunt, was that by 2006 the Iraq war had drained away most of the C.I.A. officers with field experience in the Islamic world. “You had a very finite number” of experienced officers, said one former senior intelligence official. “Those people all went to Iraq. We were all hurting because of Iraq.”

But while Mr. Bush vowed early on that Mr. bin Laden would be captured “dead or alive,” the moment in late 2001 when Mr. bin Laden and his followers escaped at Tora Bora was almost certainly the last time the Qaeda leader was in American sights, current and former intelligence officials say. Leading terrorism experts have warned that it is only a matter of time before a major terrorist attack planned in the mountains of Pakistan is carried out on American soil.

“The United States faces a threat from Al Qaeda today that is comparable to what it faced on Sept. 11, 2001,” said Seth Jones, a Pentagon consultant and a terrorism expert at the RAND Corporation.

“The base of operations has moved only a short distance, roughly the difference from New York to Philadelphia.”

[Deleted]

Suppose for a moment that...

Barack Obama appeared at an event where he was endorsed by a young musician popular with a particular demographic that he's trying to court in this election. Now suppose that - in introducing that musician - Obama referred to one of that musician's more popular songs. Now suppose that the referenced song was full of sexual double entendre. NOW suppose that Obama claimed that the song was about energy independence

thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/25/mccains-daddy-yankee-endorsement/

EDIT: I'm not comparing the Daddy Yankee-McCain relationship to the Obama-Wright relationship. My point is that if we decide to dig into every person that every Presidential candidate associates with/seeks endorsement from/etc., we'll find plenty of "interesting" people.

[hifigator]

Cam, I don't know anything about this Daddy Yankee, but I am admittedly seriously behind the curve on modern music. Still, there is a big, big difference between being the candidate of choice for any particular individual and having a 20 year relationship with your pastor, including having him perform your wedding and baptizing your children. Even if these two guys had the same radical ideas, the nature of the relationships wouldn't warrant the same interpretations.

On a related note: did you notice that the "latin" support for Obama listed, came from "gaysofFla.com?" Also, did you notice that thre reasoning had almost nothing to do with latin issues, but rather had to do with homosexual issues? I'm not going to bother looking up the source, but I would bet dollars to doughnuts that it is a group which almost always sides with the liberal candidate. Given that others are always to quick to point out facts like that if the source is an admittedly conservative platform, it is only fair to mention any political agenda here as well.

[kchoya]

Aug 27, 2008 11:05:39 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Still, there is a big, big difference between being the candidate of choice for any particular individual and having a 20 year relationship with your pastor, including having him perform your wedding and baptizing your children.

That's the key. If you don't understand that, then you just don't get it.

[Boz]

Haven't we covered this already?

Presidential campaigns throughout history have used popular music to promote their campaigns, often never bothering to delve into the meaning of the song, or deliberately spinning that meaning to their own ends. This includes Democrats and Republicans.

Just last night, Hillary was introduced to the oh, so tired and hackneyed tune of "American Girl."

Really? Those are the lyrics that Democrats want want to associate Hillary Clinton with?

And Obama has his own problems with musicians.
1. Ludacris
2. Laughing as his daughter sings along to "Drop It Like It's Hot."
3. Aretha Franklin snubbing him.
4. George Costanza singing in a campaign video.

(Really, I think #4 is the worst of the lot).

It's silliness. Nobody cares.

[hifigator]

I can't remember who it was, but just last week I read something about an artist who got wind of an upcoming McCain ad which was going to feature one of his songs and he threatened to sue the McCain camp if they went through with the ad, since he is a big Obama supporter.

Personally, I am sick and tired of the Hollywood celebs getting treated like they are somehow significant when it comes to politics. I think any of our opinions -- RDF, Cam, Boz, Buff etc ... even Brasky are just as important, if not moreso than some schmuck who happens to make millions of dollars singing or acting. And in this regard, I really don't care if he is on "my" side or not. I just think it is ridiculous that somehow Alec Fu**ing Baldwin's political opinion is worth any more than the guy who cuts my hair or pours me a beer.

[Boz]

I agree with your second point, hifi, but I think on the first point, the artists should be entitled to sue or request cease and desist.

I'm not a lawyer, so someone can help me out here, but I think unless something's public domain, the artist has every right to refuse to allow someone else to use their work. I'm sure there's a whole bunch of legal mumbo jumbo and intellectual property statutes and who owns the music, the artist or the label, blah, blah, blah. But I think it all boils down to: if they don't want you to use their music, then just don't use their music. Why bother? There's plenty of other music out there.

If I'm wrong on the law, I'm sure there are plenty of attorneys here who will correct me.

[hifigator]

Boz, I wasn't saying that the singer shouldn't be able to object at all. I was just pointing out something that just happened. He was entirely within his rights. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

[Deleted]

Aug 27, 2008 11:11:34 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Aug 27, 2008 11:05:39 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Still, there is a big, big difference between being the candidate of choice for any particular individual and having a 20 year relationship with your pastor, including having him perform your wedding and baptizing your children.

That's the key. If you don't understand that, then you just don't get it.

Well, duh - that's why I made the point that I wasn't comparing apples to apples.

McCain joked that the song "Gasolina" as being about energy independence, when it's actually about crude references to sex. Apparently, pandering to young Latino voters is more important than representing the family values that the Republican Party holds so dear.

If Obama had gotten this guy's endorsement and publicized it the same way, you guys would be singing a different tune.