Friday, November 2, 2007
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Articles
Great article Rachel.
I disagree with many (not all) of his histoical intrepretations of the British Empire, American imperialism, and imperialism in general. Because of that I am taken down a different path of conclusions. However, I do like that at he is asking open-ended questions about the future in Iraq, and the future of American foreign policy. We so often are discussing the past and the present, it would be interesting to hear both of your thoughts on the future.
---
Here are some good articles that I've run across recently:
On governmental budgets (I discussed briefly in my previous post to Justin):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/31/AR2007103102548.html
It's by David Ingatius, and it gets at an issue about the federal government and how is works (or doesn't work).
Also, Justin has brought up the Turkish issue a couple of times. Well here is a wonderful article by Christopher Hitchens about the topic.
http://www.slate.com/id/2176842/
He's probably more in line with Justin than me. But I can only guess at that because I don't know where he stands on the issue outside of his believe that it's all Bush's fault.
And here's two more Hitchens articles is you have the time:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/11/hitchens200711?currentPage=1
Hitchens writes about a soldier recently killed in Iraq, who decide to join the Army because of Hitchens own writings. It is a powerful introspective.
And this one about the new term "Anglosphere"
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_anglosphere.html
I disagree with many (not all) of his histoical intrepretations of the British Empire, American imperialism, and imperialism in general. Because of that I am taken down a different path of conclusions. However, I do like that at he is asking open-ended questions about the future in Iraq, and the future of American foreign policy. We so often are discussing the past and the present, it would be interesting to hear both of your thoughts on the future.
---
Here are some good articles that I've run across recently:
On governmental budgets (I discussed briefly in my previous post to Justin):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/31/AR2007103102548.html
It's by David Ingatius, and it gets at an issue about the federal government and how is works (or doesn't work).
Also, Justin has brought up the Turkish issue a couple of times. Well here is a wonderful article by Christopher Hitchens about the topic.
http://www.slate.com/id/2176842/
He's probably more in line with Justin than me. But I can only guess at that because I don't know where he stands on the issue outside of his believe that it's all Bush's fault.
And here's two more Hitchens articles is you have the time:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/11/hitchens200711?currentPage=1
Hitchens writes about a soldier recently killed in Iraq, who decide to join the Army because of Hitchens own writings. It is a powerful introspective.
And this one about the new term "Anglosphere"
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_anglosphere.html
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
In the Spirit of Alternatives
Now, I would like to warn everyone that this article is written by:
John B. Judis, a senior editor at The New Republic and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His recently published work is called The Folly of Empire. I believe he would best be described as a liberal internationalist. Or, someone who believes in playing nice with others instead of acting unilaterally. So, yes, he is a liberal.
But please take the time to read what he has to say. He examines U.S. foreign policy pre-WW1 to present and then, at the end, presents alternatives for future policy decisions.
I also have to warn you that he uses words like "neo-conservative" and "neo-imperialist." Please try to get past any distaste you have for labels (I hate labels, too, so I totally feel you) and keep reading.
John B. Judis' discussion of Iraq and U.S. Foreign Policy
Thanks,
Rachel
P.S. If you don't have time for the whole article, here is the end. But the whole article is really worth the read!
" The new administration needs to repudiate Bush's strategy of preemptive regime change and reaffirm the United Nations charter, which allows nations to act unilaterally only in their own immediate self-defense. That would have an immediate effect on American policy toward Iran, whose regime the United States is now officially trying to overthrow.
The new administration needs to reaffirm the idea behind internationally sanctioned and administered "mandates" and "trusteeship" for countries and peoples going through a difficult transition toward independence and statehood. If countries intervene to prevent war or genocide, they must do so in a manner that assures the peoples targeted that their right of self-determination will be respected. If the United States, for instance, had tried to intervene in the Balkans by itself, it might still be fighting an insurgency there.
The new administration needs to reaffirm the importance of international action and agreements -- through the U.N. and other bodies -- to aid in the prevention of wars, pandemics, and environmental catastrophe, and to ease the struggle over scarce resources, including oil and water. That means at a minimum returning to the negotiations over global warming; and attempting to revive the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which the U.S. undermined in signing a nuclear deal with India."
--John B. Judis
John B. Judis, a senior editor at The New Republic and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His recently published work is called The Folly of Empire. I believe he would best be described as a liberal internationalist. Or, someone who believes in playing nice with others instead of acting unilaterally. So, yes, he is a liberal.
But please take the time to read what he has to say. He examines U.S. foreign policy pre-WW1 to present and then, at the end, presents alternatives for future policy decisions.
I also have to warn you that he uses words like "neo-conservative" and "neo-imperialist." Please try to get past any distaste you have for labels (I hate labels, too, so I totally feel you) and keep reading.
John B. Judis' discussion of Iraq and U.S. Foreign Policy
Thanks,
Rachel
P.S. If you don't have time for the whole article, here is the end. But the whole article is really worth the read!
" The new administration needs to repudiate Bush's strategy of preemptive regime change and reaffirm the United Nations charter, which allows nations to act unilaterally only in their own immediate self-defense. That would have an immediate effect on American policy toward Iran, whose regime the United States is now officially trying to overthrow.
The new administration needs to reaffirm the idea behind internationally sanctioned and administered "mandates" and "trusteeship" for countries and peoples going through a difficult transition toward independence and statehood. If countries intervene to prevent war or genocide, they must do so in a manner that assures the peoples targeted that their right of self-determination will be respected. If the United States, for instance, had tried to intervene in the Balkans by itself, it might still be fighting an insurgency there.
The new administration needs to reaffirm the importance of international action and agreements -- through the U.N. and other bodies -- to aid in the prevention of wars, pandemics, and environmental catastrophe, and to ease the struggle over scarce resources, including oil and water. That means at a minimum returning to the negotiations over global warming; and attempting to revive the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which the U.S. undermined in signing a nuclear deal with India."
--John B. Judis
Hippies?
Justin,
To begin with, Justin, I think that you are not only being political when it comes to Mr. Garamendi's comments, but that you are political on most things that we talk about. But this is not bad thing to be. It means (at least to me) that you are engaged in the topics and take you take stances based on rational conclusions.
--
I didn't realized that I made any sort of comparison between you and hippies. In fact I'm not sure that I've made any accusations against you about anything.
But I am more than happy to respond to things that you think are directly Bush's fault:
1. Turkey vs. the PKK
I didn't realized that Bush was responsible for a conflict that was created by the Treaty of Versailles. Now I guess that you could state that Bush's policies liberated the Kurds from Arab domination and therefore caused national Marxist groups like the PKK to become more brazen in their attacks against the Turks (and coincidentally against the Syrians and Iranians). But there is one caveat to that; It was the no-fly zones of the 90s that gave Kurds in Iraq their autonomy, and the PKK has had northern Iraq as a home base there ever since. So Bush is not directly responsible for this situation, but could have possibly added to it.
2. The ice caps
I didn't realized that Bush is directly responsible for global-warming. I understand political attacks on Bush by environmentalists over policy issues. I understand Democrats attacking Bush on global warming to score political points with liberal constituents. But I can't believe that Bush is solely and direct responsible fore the recession of the ice caps. If the scientists are correct then this melting has been going on for quite some time. And I believe that there is a great deal of earth science left to be understood before we have a full scope on global warming.
3. NG equipment and natural disasters
Now this one I will give you. A great deal of equipment is in Iraq. And the NG and reservist depots are much below there normal capacities. But I don't think that we need military equipment to fight fires. I think that we need fire hoses, and fire trucks, and perhaps some of those helicopters that can scoop up a bunch of water from a lake and dump it on a fire.
4. Cold people
I'm unsure what you mean by this. I'm guessing that you think that Bush wants poor families to be cold (as in a continuation of poverty so that they can't afford to heat their homes). This one definitely needs some elaboration.
5. Missing bin Laden
Is Bush solely responsible for not catching bin Laden? I don't know, and neither do you.
6. The cost of war
You are partially correct. Bush is only a piece in the governmental budgetary process. The current process is based on the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (from a Congressional standpoint). This act set up a relationship between appropriating and authorizing committees, and created a budget committee to keep things in order. For the executive branches side, I believe it was during the Hoover administration that the White House for the first time began to send joint budgets to Congress, up until then each department would send budgets to the Hill independently of each other.
But to get back to your point.... yes Bush has responsibility for the cost of the War in Iraq, but he is by no means directly responsible.
7. Hack job science
Once again I need more elaboration.
To begin with, Justin, I think that you are not only being political when it comes to Mr. Garamendi's comments, but that you are political on most things that we talk about. But this is not bad thing to be. It means (at least to me) that you are engaged in the topics and take you take stances based on rational conclusions.
--
I didn't realized that I made any sort of comparison between you and hippies. In fact I'm not sure that I've made any accusations against you about anything.
But I am more than happy to respond to things that you think are directly Bush's fault:
1. Turkey vs. the PKK
I didn't realized that Bush was responsible for a conflict that was created by the Treaty of Versailles. Now I guess that you could state that Bush's policies liberated the Kurds from Arab domination and therefore caused national Marxist groups like the PKK to become more brazen in their attacks against the Turks (and coincidentally against the Syrians and Iranians). But there is one caveat to that; It was the no-fly zones of the 90s that gave Kurds in Iraq their autonomy, and the PKK has had northern Iraq as a home base there ever since. So Bush is not directly responsible for this situation, but could have possibly added to it.
2. The ice caps
I didn't realized that Bush is directly responsible for global-warming. I understand political attacks on Bush by environmentalists over policy issues. I understand Democrats attacking Bush on global warming to score political points with liberal constituents. But I can't believe that Bush is solely and direct responsible fore the recession of the ice caps. If the scientists are correct then this melting has been going on for quite some time. And I believe that there is a great deal of earth science left to be understood before we have a full scope on global warming.
3. NG equipment and natural disasters
Now this one I will give you. A great deal of equipment is in Iraq. And the NG and reservist depots are much below there normal capacities. But I don't think that we need military equipment to fight fires. I think that we need fire hoses, and fire trucks, and perhaps some of those helicopters that can scoop up a bunch of water from a lake and dump it on a fire.
4. Cold people
I'm unsure what you mean by this. I'm guessing that you think that Bush wants poor families to be cold (as in a continuation of poverty so that they can't afford to heat their homes). This one definitely needs some elaboration.
5. Missing bin Laden
Is Bush solely responsible for not catching bin Laden? I don't know, and neither do you.
6. The cost of war
You are partially correct. Bush is only a piece in the governmental budgetary process. The current process is based on the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (from a Congressional standpoint). This act set up a relationship between appropriating and authorizing committees, and created a budget committee to keep things in order. For the executive branches side, I believe it was during the Hoover administration that the White House for the first time began to send joint budgets to Congress, up until then each department would send budgets to the Hill independently of each other.
But to get back to your point.... yes Bush has responsibility for the cost of the War in Iraq, but he is by no means directly responsible.
7. Hack job science
Once again I need more elaboration.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Response to comments
Rachel,
I agree that the National Guard is not at full capacity here in the US, but there's no reason that that fact should impact the governments ability to cope with natural disasters. The Katrina problems stemmed from incompetence at the local, state, and federal levels. They had trouble getting assets into place, not lacking assets. And in California they need fire-fighters and rain, not soldiers. Of course the NG could help displaced people, but so could anyone else. Mr. Garamendi's comments on Hardball were political opportunities. Opportunities which seemed, at least to you me and Justin, to be well worth it (since we're still talking about him).
---
I don't take Bush criticism personally. If I did that I would be pissed off pretty much every second of every day until he leaves office (and probably beyond that too). So, I was not upset by Justins comments. I was more amused (no offense Justin). It reminded me of me, bitching up a storm about Bill Clinton and how I thought that everything that was going wrong was ultimately his fault. These days I like giving the Dems the benefit of the doubt, and I am always reexamining the Repubs for mistakes that they've made (boy have they been fucking up recently). Now that doesn't mean that I don't get angry and rail agains Pelosi and company, it just means that I attempt to be more patient.
As far as Bush and me. I will support him as long as he continues the current policy in regards to Iraq, Afghanistan, the pursuit of international terrorist organizations, and intelligence gathering. For me those are my principle issues, and I will vote for the candidate that I feel will continue these policies and also be able to adjust to future developments.
Now does that mean that I am wholeheartedly for every foreign or security policy that Bush has either pushed or created? Not at all. I understand, and try not to dismiss, the concerns expressed by you and Justin. And if Bush has a policy that I support, but don't like, then I'm open to hearing alternatives. But only if that alternative policy takes into account the risks and dangers that the current policy already addresses.
(quick aside -- The only Democratic candidate who does this (as far as I'm concerned) is Hillary Clinton. So while I will not vote for her, I hope beyond hope if a Democrat should win, that she will be it. She is the only Dem candidate that I believe is being serious about foreign policy and security issues.)
You guys are constantly tearing down the current policies for a whole litany of reasons, but rarely do you offer up your vision for alternatives. Because you don't do this, it is sometimes hard for me to take you seriously. So what I find frustrating is not Justin's rampaging, but how to respond without myself going on a rampage. Because I do respect you opinions and I don't want you to think otherwise.
T
ps. I'd like to get back to talking about the Military Commissions Act, will try to comment later this week
I agree that the National Guard is not at full capacity here in the US, but there's no reason that that fact should impact the governments ability to cope with natural disasters. The Katrina problems stemmed from incompetence at the local, state, and federal levels. They had trouble getting assets into place, not lacking assets. And in California they need fire-fighters and rain, not soldiers. Of course the NG could help displaced people, but so could anyone else. Mr. Garamendi's comments on Hardball were political opportunities. Opportunities which seemed, at least to you me and Justin, to be well worth it (since we're still talking about him).
---
I don't take Bush criticism personally. If I did that I would be pissed off pretty much every second of every day until he leaves office (and probably beyond that too). So, I was not upset by Justins comments. I was more amused (no offense Justin). It reminded me of me, bitching up a storm about Bill Clinton and how I thought that everything that was going wrong was ultimately his fault. These days I like giving the Dems the benefit of the doubt, and I am always reexamining the Repubs for mistakes that they've made (boy have they been fucking up recently). Now that doesn't mean that I don't get angry and rail agains Pelosi and company, it just means that I attempt to be more patient.
As far as Bush and me. I will support him as long as he continues the current policy in regards to Iraq, Afghanistan, the pursuit of international terrorist organizations, and intelligence gathering. For me those are my principle issues, and I will vote for the candidate that I feel will continue these policies and also be able to adjust to future developments.
Now does that mean that I am wholeheartedly for every foreign or security policy that Bush has either pushed or created? Not at all. I understand, and try not to dismiss, the concerns expressed by you and Justin. And if Bush has a policy that I support, but don't like, then I'm open to hearing alternatives. But only if that alternative policy takes into account the risks and dangers that the current policy already addresses.
(quick aside -- The only Democratic candidate who does this (as far as I'm concerned) is Hillary Clinton. So while I will not vote for her, I hope beyond hope if a Democrat should win, that she will be it. She is the only Dem candidate that I believe is being serious about foreign policy and security issues.)
You guys are constantly tearing down the current policies for a whole litany of reasons, but rarely do you offer up your vision for alternatives. Because you don't do this, it is sometimes hard for me to take you seriously. So what I find frustrating is not Justin's rampaging, but how to respond without myself going on a rampage. Because I do respect you opinions and I don't want you to think otherwise.
T
ps. I'd like to get back to talking about the Military Commissions Act, will try to comment later this week
Come Now, Children
Dear "Tybz",
I do not appreciate you associating me with such a bumbling fool of a mortal as George W. Bush. Perhaps Dick Cheney, on occasion, has helped me with some minor tasks, but I once approached Bush about a partnership and he replied "A partnership? So what you mean to say is, workin together?" and then blinked rapidly.
I tried to explain the great things we could achieve together and he interrupted me quite rudely to ask if I was aware that his father had been president and did I have any blow, at which point I gave up. His eyes seemed to glaze over when I spoke for too long. As I turned to leave, he did mutter one thing I was hoping you could explain. I am fairly sure he said, "Fool me once, shame on...you...fool me..can't get fooled again!" Then he laughed maniacally and continued defecating on the Constitution. I just couldn't work with him.
However, if you have John Yoo's or Ted Haggard's contact information, please tell them I would love to chat.
Sincerely,
the Adversary
(aka The Devil, Abbadon, Angra Mainyu, Satan, Asmodai, Beezlebub, Lucifer, Belial, and Iblis)
P.S. If you don't mind, please tell Anne Coulter to get it under control if you see her. Obviously I'll be seeing her soon, but it seems she is losing her effectiveness.
I do not appreciate you associating me with such a bumbling fool of a mortal as George W. Bush. Perhaps Dick Cheney, on occasion, has helped me with some minor tasks, but I once approached Bush about a partnership and he replied "A partnership? So what you mean to say is, workin together?" and then blinked rapidly.
I tried to explain the great things we could achieve together and he interrupted me quite rudely to ask if I was aware that his father had been president and did I have any blow, at which point I gave up. His eyes seemed to glaze over when I spoke for too long. As I turned to leave, he did mutter one thing I was hoping you could explain. I am fairly sure he said, "Fool me once, shame on...you...fool me..can't get fooled again!" Then he laughed maniacally and continued defecating on the Constitution. I just couldn't work with him.
However, if you have John Yoo's or Ted Haggard's contact information, please tell them I would love to chat.
Sincerely,
the Adversary
(aka The Devil, Abbadon, Angra Mainyu, Satan, Asmodai, Beezlebub, Lucifer, Belial, and Iblis)
P.S. If you don't mind, please tell Anne Coulter to get it under control if you see her. Obviously I'll be seeing her soon, but it seems she is losing her effectiveness.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Bush is the Devil!
What about the Black Plague and AIDS? Bush is responsible for those too right? Rivers of blood, plagues of locusts, dogs and cats living together...Mass hysteria!!!!
I've also heard that Bush likes to bite the heads of puppies. I read it somewhere on the internet so it must be true.
By the way is the Lt. Gov of California a Dem? Wait a sec, he is, he is. So basically what you're saying that a virtually unknown Democratic state-level politician chastised a Republican president with low poll numbers; that is shocking! I bet none of us had ever heard of John Garamendi before now. But now we are discussing his bravery in stand up to a vile and despicable man. Wait, Justin, I thought that you disdained politics.
Hugh Rugter
I've also heard that Bush likes to bite the heads of puppies. I read it somewhere on the internet so it must be true.
By the way is the Lt. Gov of California a Dem? Wait a sec, he is, he is. So basically what you're saying that a virtually unknown Democratic state-level politician chastised a Republican president with low poll numbers; that is shocking! I bet none of us had ever heard of John Garamendi before now. But now we are discussing his bravery in stand up to a vile and despicable man. Wait, Justin, I thought that you disdained politics.
Hugh Rugter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
