Friday, October 31, 2003

‘Well, You Try To Reconstruct Iraq,’ Says U.S. Defensive Dept.

War

As always, the Onion has it straight. 


Posted by Buckethead on 10/31/03 at 08:36 PM
War • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

New, incredible web toy

Entertainment

This is cool beyond words.  If you’re a geek, and I know you are or you wouldn’t be here.

This website allows you to create things like this:

image


Posted by Buckethead on 10/31/03 at 07:03 PM
Entertainment • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Life stops dead when the delegates are in town

Unmitigated Gall

I live north of Boston, and commute to the city every day to work. So imagine my consternation when I find that North Station, the only train station I can get to from where I live, will almost certainly be closing for the duration of the Democratic Party convention in July of 2004. Traffic will be re-routed as well, but that’s an everyday thing around here.

I’m glad that the city of Boston got the convention, as it’s quite the moneymaker. But can’t they figure out a better way to accommodate thousands of commuters than to shut down their only conduit in and out of the city? Oh, I COULD take a bus, but I’m already up at 5:30 to commute as it is.  I realize it’s not the fault of the Democrats, but since I can’t vote against the people who did this in Boston elections…


Posted by Johno on 10/31/03 at 06:09 PM
Unmitigated Gall • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

On discourse

Partisan Politics

In the comments to a post by Ross below, I noted that the level of discourse around here is rising sharply with the addition of him and GeekLethal to our numbers. I am delighted that is the case.

On the topic of discourse, I came across a reminder by Daniel Drezner today of this oxblog post by Josh Chafetz about the verbal petards launched between left and right. Chafetz asks for a little civility, please, when talking across the aisle. His particular instance is taken from Matthew Yglesias’ comments, in which his readers opine that there is no such thing as an intelligent conservative.

Oh, please. I know this kind of thing is common as dirt, and that it happens on both sides of the debate (Instapundit, Li’l Green Footballs, I’m talking to you), but just because everyone does it doesn’t make it any less crass or lazy. Is it really such a stretch to assume that people who disagree with you have actually thought through what they believe? To assume otherwise is disingenous, yet it happens all the time, and it makes me sad and tired.


Posted by Johno on 10/31/03 at 05:04 PM
Partisan Politics • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

As Simple As Possible, But No Simpler

War

I’m not going to fisk, but I’m going to take issue with a number of points you raise.  Your general tone is “path of righteousness”. 

We are having an effect on certain terrorists, but new recruits are banging on their doors, and overall I suspect terrorism is largely unabated.  I think that there just aren’t all that many people in the world willing to commit suicide for their beliefs.  There are some, but not that many.  The rarity of events lik 9/11 is statistical evidence for this.

America’s Army is NOT exterminating terrorists at the moment.  They are engaged in a low-intensity battle against resistance forces, after having exhausted the regular forces invading a teeny-tiny country.  Yes, there are some terrorists in the mix, and we hear about the car bombs and so forth.  99% of the conflicts with American forces are run-of-the-mill insurgents.  You can’t call them all terrorists.  Some of them are pissed-off natives who don’t want the US in their country.  Some of them are Baathists.  It’s a mixture. 

The bottom line is that most of the strength of the military is engaged in nation-building at the moment.  By most reports I’ve read, resources have generally been shifted away from pursuit of terrorism, and towards political change in Iraq.

This is single-issue, silver-bullet foreign policy.  A very great number of eggs are in a single basket.  There are so many eggs in the basket that, yes, in the absence of other fiscal responsibility, there are serious threats to the economic stability of the country.

Nobody thinks the 7% growth rate is anything more than a single exceptional quarter.  Most predictions go for around a 4.5% quarter next time, which is still very good, but more in line with history.

Do you not see that the debate has everything with what the US may _legitimately_ do in the world?  If a nuclear bomb had detonated in NY, and was traced to Saddam Hussein, the entire world would have been behind the US in removing him.  They probably would have lead the way.

This is instead a forceful war of political change...cynical and expensive.  It is by no means a “war of revenge”.  There is no direct connection between Hussein and 9/11.  Are you arguing that you believe there to be a solid connection?  One that was known BEFORE the war was initiated?  You are certainly willing to trade on the idea, to make your political points.  Do you or do you not believe it?  What evidence do you have?  You have no business using it as an underpinning to debate otherwise.

So what does $300 Billion buy us?  Quite a lot.  Our yearly medicare budget is around $250 Billion.  The interest on the national debt is around $175 Billion (due to rise dramatically).  $300 Billion is a rather incredible amount of money!  Of course, prior to the war, Mitch Daniels (long since fired as White House budget director) explained that the war would cost around $50 Billion.

It is simple, and deceitful, to throw round numbers like “1% of GDP”.  The government doesn’t have anywhere near a large percentage of GDP to work with; the federal budget is around 25% of GDP, I think.

With the huge deficits Bush has created just around the corner. we will be spending, on interest, enough money to do an Iraq every year in short order. 

There are so many absolutes in what you write.  “Terrorists are created not by our actions, but by the failure of their societies”.  So our actions have no effect?  I think they do.  I think our actions matter greatly.  I think Bush’s snubbing of the UN has had an effect.  His abandonment of the Palestinian-Israeli peace process has had an effect.  The trashing of Kyoto has had an effect (we can argue all day long about whether it would work or not, but symbolically it was a tremendous blow to multilateralism).

I’ll retract the NASCAR remark, with regards to YOU.  I stand by it as far as this Administration goes.  And I stand by it for most people I’ve met in favor of the war.  Their thinking hasn’t gone much past, “punch me, and get punched”.

“tit-for-tat” is one of the winningest strategies for the Prisoner’s Dilemma, a well-studied game theory example.  I gather, in your world, that there need be no foreign policy more sophisticated than tit-for-tat.  tit-for-tat is a conservative position that attempts to engender cooperation, rewarding cooperation where it exists, and punishing it where it does not.  There are strategies that can beat it, but it’s pretty good all around.

We aren’t playing tit-for-tat, because we just took the first punch.  We chose the path of non-cooperation, of unilateralism.

Finally, you state that “It is sadly common for those who are protected to resent those who do the bloody work of protecting.”

Do you believe that you are somehow identifying with more firmly, and are showing more solidarity with our armed forces?  I do not recall you have been on any secret missions to Iraq. 

Men with guns, you can’t handle the truth, and all of that.  You are not on the wall with a gun, and neither am I.  There are men (and women) doing that.  Do you imply that those who disagree with Bush policy resent our soldiers, who protect us, and who follow orders?


Posted by Ross on 10/31/03 at 02:21 AM
War • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink