you always have made a lot of generalizations, donny. idiotic suicidal left-wing pseudo-pacifist handwringing? were overwrought labels on sale at the stupid bins? do you get a free 'HARDBALL' t-shirt with that?
i didn't say war was always unnecessary. i agree that we had to be involved in world war II. i agree that we had to go to afghanistan. man did we half-ass that one, though.
but you and i know that the policymakers in rumsfeld's DOD didn't give a fuck about afghanistan. according to powell, wolfowitz immediately put iraq on the table after 9/11. that's where he wanted to go first.
but we had to go to afghanistan. the whole patriotic circus around it was apalling. everybody loves a good war. anyway, before we finish the job, we jumped off to iraq. does it make logical sense? does it have anything to do with 9/11? if you ask me, the neocons forgot about 9/11 as anything but an axle around which to build their war machine.
i do not agree that a war in iran is necessary, nor would it accomplish much, other than start a very big fire that we will have no control over. nor do i think the neoconservatives would let a little speed bump like our nation's system of checks and balances stop them from pressing forward in their crusade (apparently they still think they can control it). it hasn't stopped them before. you start the war, and then if congress decides it might not want to fund it, you nail em come election time with 'so and so didn't support our troops'. this is how it happens.
i agree wholeheartedly with this statement:
>the best way to avoid war is to take diplomacy seriously.
and i think the best way to take diplomacy seriously is to keep the hawks out of it. it's good to have a stick in your hand, but if you're going to talk, talk. don't say, "we will only talk to you if you agree to do what we say first." how heavy-handed is that? it is blatantly set up to fail. i'm not saying that it will fail, or that the diplomats want it to fail. just that it is set up that way.
>prevention of the spread of WMD, assuming there really IS a threat, IS one of the few things really worth going to war over.
it's a really big 'assuming' to undertake. we assumed there was a threat last time, and before there was adequate proof, we acted upon that assumption. remember? EVERYbody thought iraq had those fucking weapons. colin powell got up on tv and they set him up with bad information and he told the United Nations that WE HAVE THE PROOF. condi rice got up and said IT CAN'T WAIT. and everyone believed them. it takes soooooooo long to develop nuclear weapons. but just as they did with iraq, they can make iran seem like a clear and present danger.
so yes, diplomacy is the solution. but it will never work as long as it's a straw man for the hawks to point at and say: see? it didn't work.
do i think we can avoid it? of course i do. but i also think the deck's a little stacked. ...
hey what are you up to these days? do you have myspace?
you always have made a lot of generalizations, donny. idiotic suicidal left-wing pseudo-pacifist handwringing? were overwrought labels on sale at the stupid bins? do you get a free 'HARDBALL' t-shirt with that?
i didn't say war was always unnecessary. i agree that we had to be involved in world war II. i agree that we had to go to afghanistan. man did we half-ass that one, though.
but you and i know that the policymakers in rumsfeld's DOD didn't give a fuck about afghanistan. according to powell, wolfowitz immediately put iraq on the table after 9/11. that's where he wanted to go first.
but we had to go to afghanistan. the whole patriotic circus around it was apalling. everybody loves a good war. anyway, before we finish the job, we jumped off to iraq. does it make logical sense? does it have anything to do with 9/11? if you ask me, the neocons forgot about 9/11 as anything but an axle around which to build their war machine.
i do not agree that a war in iran is necessary, nor would it accomplish much, other than start a very big fire that we will have no control over. nor do i think the neoconservatives would let a little speed bump like our nation's system of checks and balances stop them from pressing forward in their crusade (apparently they still think they can control it). it hasn't stopped them before. you start the war, and then if congress decides it might not want to fund it, you nail em come election time with 'so and so didn't support our troops'. this is how it happens.
i agree wholeheartedly with this statement:
>the best way to avoid war is to take diplomacy seriously.
and i think the best way to take diplomacy seriously is to keep the hawks out of it. it's good to have a stick in your hand, but if you're going to talk, talk. don't say, "we will only talk to you if you agree to do what we say first." how heavy-handed is that? it is blatantly set up to fail. i'm not saying that it will fail, or that the diplomats want it to fail. just that it is set up that way.
>prevention of the spread of WMD, assuming there really IS a threat, IS one of the few things really worth going to war over.
it's a really big 'assuming' to undertake. we assumed there was a threat last time, and before there was adequate proof, we acted upon that assumption. remember? EVERYbody thought iraq had those fucking weapons. colin powell got up on tv and they set him up with bad information and he told the United Nations that WE HAVE THE PROOF. condi rice got up and said IT CAN'T WAIT. and everyone believed them. it takes soooooooo long to develop nuclear weapons. but just as they did with iraq, they can make iran seem like a clear and present danger.
so yes, diplomacy is the solution. but it will never work as long as it's a straw man for the hawks to point at and say: see? it didn't work.
do i think we can avoid it? of course i do. but i also think the deck's a little stacked.
...
hey what are you up to these days? do you have myspace?
Reply
Leave a comment