freecounterpoint: good news

Thursday, July 13, 2006

good news

9 comments:

Tecumseh said...: As always, the wet dream of the Left is to see America defeated. Not gonna happen.; 7/13/2006 9:25 PM
The Darkroom said...: ? come on ai, you know you have already lost this war. The one in iraq that is. It's now more a matter of how you can pull out and still save face.

The one on terror is more ambiguous since it isn't clear what the objectives are, let alone what victory will consist of.; 7/13/2006 9:57 PM
Tecumseh said...: come on ai, you know you have already lost this war. Says who? Far as I can tell, the US Army (and the Brits) are there on the ground, killing dead the bad guys, such as Zarky. That's good enough for me. And I don't see how that can be construed as "losing the war". In what sense -- as in, the French capitulating in June 1940, or at Dien Bien Phu? No way, José!; 7/14/2006 1:26 AM
Tecumseh said...: what victory will consist of.
Don't know, either, but for the time being, let's just define it a stayin' alive. As the song goes,

Music loud and women warm,
I've been kicked around since I was born.
And now it's all right. It's OK.
And you may look the other way.
We can try to understand
the New York Times' effect on man.

Life goin' nowhere. Somebody help me.
Somebody help me, yeah.
Life goin' nowhere. Somebody help me, yeah.
I'm stayin' alive.; 7/14/2006 1:30 AM
The Darkroom said...: >>Says who? Far as I can tell, the US Army (and the Brits) are there on the ground, killing dead the bad guys, such as Zarky. That's good enough for me.

Yes. You've killed a bad guy. bra-vo. You've also contributed to the start of a civil war and are presiding over a situation that has been continuously degrading.
Things are so bad now that the iraqis were arguably better off under saddam than they are today with the car-bombings, beheadings, etc... And that's good enough for you ? Do you see yourself as no more than the political equivalent of a cheerleader, clapping for the team no matter what trouncing it is getting ?; 7/14/2006 8:58 AM
Tecumseh said...: No that's not it -- see eg, this thread. The point is that I'm rooting for America -- and, by implication, the Free World -- to survive and prosper. As a necessary condition, we got to win in Iraq -- there are no two ways about it.

As a counterpoint, there are those who root for America to be defeated. I understand why someone like Binnie (or the departed Zarky) would feel like that, but it still mystifies me why seemingly rational people, like for example the NYT editors, would want us to lose the War on Terror. Is there a pop-psych explanation folr that, except for the dubious pleasure of spitting in one's face?; 7/15/2006 11:21 AM
The Darkroom said...: >>it still mystifies me why seemingly rational people, like for example the NYT editors, would want us to lose the War on Terror

I think I can answer that.

First off it is difficult to buy into the notion of war against an abstract concept (terror, evil, ...). This is compounded by the fact that there are no clear objectives and, as a corrolary, that victory is arbitrary.

Second of all, the means by which this war is fought are enhancing the problem rather than resolve it: obl wannabes now have a second reason to be fighting the west (the first being the israeli presence in the middle east obviously). As a result the world is a considerably more dangerous place since the start of the war against iraq and counting.

My personal favorite is that I find the concept of preemptive war abhorent. it creates a precedent that is a much greater threat to the planet than AQ and its firecrackers as it allows any country to attack another by invoking the feeling of a threat, even in the absence of the reasonable threshold of clear and present danger. Seeing the US loose its preemptive war (largely because the rest of the int'l community didn't buy into it) would set a great example to other entities that may be tempted to adopt this myopic foreign policy as their own.; 7/15/2006 11:51 AM
Tecumseh said...: The Frenchy-NYT case for sabotaging the War on Terror, in a nutshell. It has a certain internal coherence, and a vague patina of rationality, but deep down, it is totally flawed. Why? Well, it would talke me too long to explain, and, at the end of the day, I won't change anyone's mind. So let's agree to disagree. But at least, let's try to pay attention to current events, and see who's more right than wrong. And hey, in a sense I wish I was wrong, and that lefty sophistry was right -- for it would mean everything is all right, nothing to worry, small adjustments at the margings will get us through. But I'm afraid the world is a much nastier place, with lots of bad guys just waiting for us to stumble so as to eat us alive. America -- and its might -- is basically the only thing preventing such a scenario. But I don't expect the French or the NYT will ever grasp that, it's axiomatic.; 7/16/2006 12:20 AM
The Darkroom said...: >>it is totally flawed. Why? Well, it would talke me too long to explain

you have got to be kidding.; 7/16/2006 7:08 AM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)