What Happens: The Sequel!
258 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 Newer→ Last
-
Danielle,
Re: FEMA
We have been disagreeing on which organization was responsible for disaster preparation and response in relation to Katrina. You say FEMA and I say local and state Govt.
The link below is to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/Katrina/ExecSum.pdf
Here is what is stated regarding authority (bottom of page 3)
"It has long been standard practice that emergency response begins at the lowest possible jurisdictional level – typically the local government, with state government becoming involved at the local government’s request when the resources of local government are (or are expected to be) overwhelmed. Similarly, while the federal government provides ongoing financial support to state and local governments for emergency preparedness, ordinarily it becomes involved in responding to a disaster at a state’s request when resources of state and local governments are (or are expected to be) overwhelmed."
"Louisiana’s Emergency Operations Plan explicitly lays out this hierarchy of response."
Seems pretty clear to me.
The Local and State govts can request help from the Feds, but unless the Governor specifically hands over authority to the Feds, the Governor is in charge of disaster response. Bush tried to get Governor Blanco to agree to federalize the disaster response authority, but after taking 24 hours to "think about it" she said no. I am not sure that it was a good idea anyway.
To reiterate, I am not suggesting in anyway that FEMA and the Feds did not screw up, they did, especially FEMA, and the Senate reports describes their failings in detail. What I am saying is that there was plenty of blame to go around and that all parties involved in Katrina, in both their preparations and response to Katrina, screwed up and therefore share in the blame. It is simply inaccurate and unreasonable to say that it was all FEMA and the Administrations fault when local and state govt were in charge and made substantial and consequential mistakes.
Here is some of what the report states about the failure of local and state leadership.
“The Committee believes that leadership failures needlessly compounded these losses. Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco –who knew the limitations of their resources to address a catastrophe—did not specify those needs adequately to the federal government before landfall. For example, while Governor Blanco stated in a letter to President Bush two days before landfall that she anticipated the resources of the state would be overwhelmed, she made no specific request for assistance in evacuating the known tens of thousands of people without means of transportation, and a senior state official identified no unmet needs in response to a federal offer of assistance the following day. The state’s transportation secretary also ignored his responsibilities under the state’s emergency operations plan, leaving no arm of the state government prepared to obtain and deliver additional transportation to those in New Orleans who lacked it, when Katrina struck. In view of the long-standing role of requests as a trigger for action by higher levels of government, the state bears responsibility for not signaling its needs to the federal government more clearly”.
Again, that is pretty clear.
With regard to the levee maintenance issue. You cite a Corp guy, Al Naomi, who states that "it would be better if the levees were raised".
The 17th street and London canal levees, which caused most of the damage to New Orleans (by $ value) broke before they were overtopped, so it wouldn't have made any difference if the levee wall had been made higher, they would have broken just the same.
More maintenance is a good thing, but it can't make up for the kind of fundamental design flaws outlined in the IPT report. Insufficient or inadequate maintenance was mentioned in passing as an "additional negative factor" i.e it wasn't a major or the major cause, it was one of a number of things that didn't help but did not cause the levee system to fail. That is why I haven't seen or heard anywhere of maintenance being discussed as a big issue. Because, as the IPT report makes clear, inadequate or faulty maintenance wasn't a big issue in the failure of the levee system.
As for the Katrina disaster .."being predicted in 2004 and earlier..". It has been predicted for a lot longer than that. The Corp was told 20 plus years ago when they proposed some of their levee designs that they were unsuitable and would most likely fail. They built them anyway. State and local govt. had however many years to get their acts together, but didn't. Katrina was a multi-faceted disaster that was years, even decades in the making.
With regard to citing people I know here who have knowledge and expertise on the subjects we are discussing, why wouldn't I cite them to support my argument? I don't understand why you find that so unacceptable. For example, if you happened to know someone who was an engineer who knew about building stadiums, wouldn't you cite that person’s view in a post that you made about whether or not to build a stadium on the waterfront? I would hope that you would, as it would add to your post and perspective.
Anyway, for what it is worth I think I have proved my view quite well. On another matter, as Danyl pointed out, I made some snarky comments in some of my posts. My apologies, I shouldn't have done that.
-
Since this thread was originally about "What Happens Next?", I thought I would share some of what has happened next.
Not a good start for Nancy. She got her ass handed to her by her own caucus!!
By Howard Fineman, who is a very middle of the road reporter for Newsweek andNBC/MSNBC, so his comments about how far left Pelosi is serve as a rebuttal to the poster who disagreed with me about where Pelosi is on the political spectrum. According to Fineman her views are "..those beliefs are so outside the mainstream...". 'Nuff said!!
Newsweek's Howard Fineman charts Nancy Pelosi's first pratfall.
The GOP cannot count on the new Speaker to be a disaster, but Democrats have to worry that the skills set necessary to manage an ideologically diverse majority are not going to come naturally to a San Francisco hyper-liberal. California Democrats generally, and San Francisco Democrats specifically are a hard left bunch, and the deeply ingrained habits of the Dems on the left coast almost always involve going further left, not to the center. It may be that Pelosi's instincts didn't fail her when she publicly backed her antiwar pal Murtha.
She may not have any political instincts, only a very rigid, very uncompromising ideology. Radaractive has more on San Francisco values and whether they will travel well. Yesterday's embarassing loss may alert Pelosi that the Speaker's gavel isn't a taser, but it is very possible that Pelosi will not have it in her to compromise her own beliefs, and those beliefs are so outside the mainstream that the Democratic Caucus could become one long shout-fest. We don't know, but if Jane Harmon does indeed get booted from the Intelligence Committee, we will have another indication of the Pelosi Way. Carol Platt Liebau, who guest hosts for me today, has more on this next choice the new Speaker will make.
-
Re: Pelosi's poor judgement
Even the New York Times gets in on the act and gives her a raspberry ... For the NYT to bash the first woman Dem Speaker before she has even taken over, now that has to be quite an achievement!!
It most certainly does not bode well for the future achievements of the newly Dem house.
-
James,
I would like you to state categorically and factually what your Republican government has done and is actually doing to improve the lives of your citizens and also in terms of foreign aid to projects on the ground. Please quantify this in results not couched hyperbole about vision. Do not obscure your facts with side charades about the actors and puppets.
Thanks in advance for clearing up this mystery to the rest of the world
Lee. -
Lee,
Glad to help remove the fog for you, shouldn't be too hard. Some quick stats right off the top of my head before I go home tonight:
US citizens
Unemployment at 4.4%, below the 20 year historical average, lower than during almost all of the 1990s, except right at the top of the internet bubble in 1998 and 1999.
Last 12 month annual growth in wages and salaries, 3.9%, above the 20 year historical average of 3.5%
Net household assets increased from about $40 trillion to $53 trillion between 2000 and 2nd quarter 2006.
Dow at a record high
Federal and many State tax receipts at record highs
The strong economic growth under pinning the above statistics has been caused by low interest rates and the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and some legislation aimed at reigning in junk law suits.
No Child Left Behind program enacted in 2001 to try to improve education performance at US schools
Multi billion dollar Prescription Drug program enacted in 2003 or 2004 to help those on low incomes or those with high prescription drug bills to get the medications they need.
Various surveillance and anti terror programs both in the US and internationally to disrupt terrorist activities and prevent more 9/11s
Multi-lateral Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) to stop the trafficking of wmd materials and wmd making materials. This initiative was responsible for intercepting a freighter carrying wmd material to Libya, and when confronted, Gahadafi 'fessed up and gave up all his wmd materials.
Multi year, multi-lateral diplomatic efforts to try to stop crack pot regimes in North Korea and Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Efforts, so far with out much success, to make the UN reform itself into a less corrupt and more effective organization after the Oil for Food and various other scandals (procurement corruption and sex for food scandals in several African UN missions).
Foreign Aid projects
The biggest new foreign aid project that comes to mind is Bush's $15 billion Aids program in Africa, which has been going for about 2 years and is starting to make a difference.
The US spends more than any other country on Aids research and environmental technology, research like clean coal and hybrid vehicle technologies (hydrogen cars, fuel cells, and battery technology).
There is much more here but I don't have the stats at my finger tips.
As far as which type of person gives the most to charities, this study was referenced on Drudge today, just in time to reply to your post!! You probably won’t like the conclusion too much, but there isn’t anything I can do about that!!
-
Multi year, multi-lateral diplomatic efforts to try to stop crack pot regimes in North Korea and Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
because god knows the US has armed enough crackpot regimes over the years, turns a blind eye to the military dictator armed with nukes in Pakistan and is actively working with India who has flaunted the very treaties that Iran is accusing of breaking. Oh and currently spends about $20 billion a year on nuclear weapon research.
Frankly I think I'm more worried about the crackpot in Washington who has caused far more death and agony, and de-stablised the planet we all live on far more in recent years than any so called crack pots in Iran.
Ah, the hypocrisy...you have long since lost the right to point the finger at either NK or Iran.
-
Simon,
Most countries the USD supports with foreign or military aid and equipment are reasonable countries that are looking to protect themselves and do not threaten other countries. There have been some exceptions to this rule, particularly during the cold war when zero sum thinking, "he is either going to be our guy or the Soviet's guy" necessarily prevailed, but the general rule prevails.
The choices involved with Pakistan are unfortunately either bad or worse. The US can support and try to work with and influence Musharrif, or undermine him and possibly end up with a Taliban like regime in control of Pakistan nukes. What would you do differently in this situation? I have to admit I don't see any better options than those currently being pursued by the US Admin, and these choices won't change in 2009 when a new US Admin comes in.
India is a stable functioning democracy that doesn't threaten anyone, other than Pakistan should it launch a nuke at India first. Sharing nuclear technology with India so they can build nuke power plants and so build fewer polluting coal fired plants seems to me to be a good idea. It also brings one of the emerging powerhouses of this century closer to the US.
The current Iranian regime is a vile regime that abuses and subjugates its own people and repeatedly threatens other countries, particularly Israel.
In sane circles, the Holocaust is agreed to have happened and that it was a bad thing. Iran has repeatedly threatened to wipe Israel off the map in a second Holocaust (which countries that the US supports with foreign or military aid have made such a threat? That would be none). I can't understand why everybody in the world doesn't want Iran stopped ASAP, by any means necessary. Iran has been the world's the primary sponsor and supporter of terrorism since 1979, threatens its neighbors and the other countries in the world and promises to ensure the world becomes Islamic. These guys with nukes is a horrible thought.
As for North Korea, a regime that let 2 1/2 million of its own citizens starve to death in the late 1990s and would sell anything to anyone at any time if it thought it could get away with it, in order to keep its leadership supplied with cognac and hookers.
How anyone would feel comfortable with either of those regimes in possessions of nukes and the missiles to launch them, is beyond me, the world would be a significantly more dangerous place.
Simon, how would the world be a better place or at least not more dangerous if Iran and NK had nukes?
It seems to me stopping these regimes from getting nukes should be a very high priority for any rational person and country, and no, that is not hypocritical. -
It seems to me stopping these regimes from getting nukes should be a very high priority for any rational person and country.
Ironically it seems to have been a very low priority for political leaders in the US and Europe. North Korea now has nukes. Iran will have them in about five years unless the US declares war on them - the probabiilty of which is vanishingly unlikely.
The question is not 'is the world safer if Iran has nukes - yes or no?
The question is: which will make the world less safe - a nuclear Iran or war with Iran?
In the best of all possible worlds the answer would be 'war with Iran'. But the countries most likely to be confronting Iran - Israel, the UK and the US - have all recently demonstrated beyond any doubt that they lack the military capability and civilian leadership to prosecute the kind of action required to disable Tehrens nuclear ambitions.
-
Another question is "will war with Iran be more likely if Iran gets the bomb?". I'd argue yes. Those theats against Israel are not empty.
Surely the question is "what can we do to stop Iran getting the bomb?" Maybe not alot but it depends mostly on what the clerics really want.
I don't see how you can say the US and Europe have made this issue a low priority. There's all the US and Europe UN diplomacy re Iran and the US inspired six party talks re NK.
-
James,
i agree that, like most countries the US targets much of it's aid in the right direction. Although I would call into question your definition of "reasonable countries that are looking to protect themselves and do not threaten other countries". Israel is far and away the biggest recipient of all aid and I'm sorry, but I do not see it as fitting that description. The US was out of step with the rest of the world in its response to the recent war against Lebanon and I would suggest has been for some decades. Whilst the world was aghast at what was happening to the people of Lebanon, the US gleefully shipped more cluster bombs and the like..after it was apparent to all that they were being targeted at civilians. At any time it could have stopped the bloodshed but chose not to.I would also question the support for Egypt if one is talking about regimes which abuses and subjugates its own citizens. I understand why Egypt was bought off, the Israeli factor in play again, but its hypocrisy none the less.
India & Pakistan, no I'm sorry your argument doesn't work. Either there are rules for all or there are not. You can't apply them to one and not the other. And then demand that Iran plays ball. Iran is a funny one. The US has a very one eyed position, almost unreal, on the country. There are some interesting posts on this site from a very smart Texan who has recently returned from the "evil" nation with some very pithy comments about the ignorance his countrymen show towards Iran. Interesting stuff and worth reading through. i don't much like their president but I do see his comments from another angle. Firstly all Farsi speakers I have spoken to have said that his words have been twisted in translation quite a bit, and that seems to be the general academic consensus. but that aside, like many politicians, posturing is important. Take a step back...do you rationally expect (and this is a rational man despite the American media's portrayal) Iran to nuke Israel...seriously? I don't want them, or anyone else to have the weapons but the concept of Iran firing a nuke at Israel or handing one to Hezbollah is so absurdly ludicrous to not need further discussion. Much of what the man says is posturing and is silly..Bush is good at that..saying incredibly silly things that no thinking person can take too seriously..except he means it sadly. Quite frankly if Iran can use words to wind up and tweak the Bush administration, if their words have such power, then well done. More power to it. I think there are some broad smiles at the response in DC from time to time. In a way they are enjoying the reaction..like Chavez, who might be a bit tin pot but his description of GWB as the personification of something rather evil...well outside the USA I don't think you'd get a lot of argument from the majority.North Korea...they know there is nothing you can do and don't give a damn.
James, I live in a country which, after a US backed coup in 1965 had a death toll of between 500,000 and 1,000,000 executed, including a very large lsit provided by the CIA of those they wanted gone. In 1975 the US and Australia okayed an invasion of East Timor that took the lives of some 30% of the population. The dictatorship that was responsible or that was supported right up until 1998, way after the end of the Cold War and was only thrown out after a popular uprising which was not supported by the US, quite the opposite. It is now the only real South East Asian democracy (which it ha largely done unaided during the Bush era) but the largely unreformed army that was responsible for those crimes in the past is now being armed and trained again by your government, unconditionally.
Hypocrisy...
The hypocrisy for me comes from you accusing Iran and North Korea of being crackpot and by implication evil. I look at the blood on the hands of the United States, not only in the past half decade by the past fifty years..the millions who would probably rather be alive than, by America's definition, free, and see rampant hypocrisy.
-
Simon,
I wish I could be as relaxed as you are about Iran, but to me the facts just don't support taking a laid back approach to these guys. I don't buy for a second that Armadinajad's words have been mistranslated or misinterpreted; Iran has held conferences on Holocaust denial and the elimination of Israel. Killing Jews and Infidels and spreading Islam worldwide is job number one according to the Koran. I think it is quite strange to be certain that they don't mean what they say. Now, as to whether the Iranians would lob a nuke at Israel as soon as they get one off their production line, I agree that that is another question, but I am with Winston Churchill on this one. His basic approach to Hilter pre WWII was "if in doubt, take the bastard out". Real shame that the "know it alls" in the 1930s all "knew better" that Churchill, their "wisdom" cost 60 million people their lives.To me it comes to the answer to 2 questions: does a regime have the intent to do harm and, does that regime have the capability to do harm? If the answer to those 2 questions is, probably, then the world is a better place without that regime. I would add another level to that approach. Are they rational and do they want to live? The Soviets were rational and wanted to live so you could construct a strategy based on deterrence, as for Armadinejad, I wouldn't bet anyone's life on what happens between his ears. In fact based on the frequency and apparent enthusiasm that Islamic suicide bombers blow themselves to bits in their desire to kill infidels, assuming that the Iranians will be rational with any nukes is like playing Russian roulette. Pre 9/11 anyone who suggested that the US needed to take out the Taliban to disrupt Al Qaeda was derided as a nut and a loon. Well guess what, turns out they were right.
There is a strategy that could work to get rid of the Iranian regime without invasion or bombing, neither of which is a particularly attractive option. It is referred to as the Polish model, which is a strategy based on supporting opposition groups to destabilize and undermine the regime, like the US did with Solidarity in Poland. I read the other day (at Stratfor, I think) that there have been several bombings in Iran's major oil production region, to which I would say, "Why didn't this start 5 years ago?" It is the only option for a good resolution to the current Iranian regime.
As for killing people, regimes of the left have the US beat 10 or more likely 100 to 1, and they left basket cases of countries in their wake. Mao killed 60 million of his own people, Pol Pot killed 3 million (I think it was 3, it might have been 6), Castro is a bit of a bungling fool compared with those 2 but he has killed thousands and thousands of Cubans and I think the estimate for those lost at sea while trying to escape his "workers paradise" is 75,000. Add in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe pre 1989 ... the list of the left’s handiwork goes on and on ...
Why is it that those on the left always want to accuse the US of mass murder when their own team has gold medal in mass slaughter wrapped up by a huge, huge margin? Would that be hypocrisy?
-
Ok James, now you are digging yourself a bit of a hole.
Firstly "To me it comes to the answer to 2 questions: does a regime have the intent to do harm and, does that regime have the capability to do harm? If the answer to those 2 questions is, probably, then the world is a better place without that regime." If those are the parameters of the judgment then I would hazard that you have rightly condemned the Bush administration's Iraqi policy of the past five years..
But I wish to take you to task over another part of your response and that is the "own team" garbage at the end of your post. Why is the world so black and white to you. Why in gods name is anyone who disagrees with the foreign policies of your country a god forsaken commie. What is thsi for us or against us thing that so plagues and has plagued US policy for years.
I don't agree with the way the United States has handled itself in recent decades but how in the hell does that make me a supporter of Mao. Its a core fallacy that plagues the US global perception, and they way they deal with other nations, and the angle you have taken whilst discussing with me. Just because Chirac was against the invasion of Iraq does not make him pro-Saddam, it simply means he is perhaps slightly more pragmatic and a realist..and as an aside has every right to say "I told you so" (and please don't toss the "Chirac was bought by Iraq or in it for the money, freedom fries nonsense into that) . Don't insult me or anyone else by making that stretch, don't talk about "your team" for gods sake.
Your argument is essentially "our murders are better than your murders" and it doesn't stack up, its defending the indefensible once again. As I said once before you and the Soviets were equal partners in the Cold War, both sides provoked and continued it. If the USA hadn't torpedoed the Vietnamese unification poll in the mid fifties because they didn't like the idea that the majority wanted re-unification, god knows how many would still be alive and we can reasonably assume that Pol Pot would not have killed however many million in Cambodia...if you are going to rack up lives like points that one has to go in your schedule I'm afraid.
And please don't bring up appeasement of Hitler, your nation didn't exactly take a stand there. Iran has invaded no-one and once you strip away the rightwing verbiage from both sides (don't forget that the president of Iran is from the same side of the political divide as Bush, and I hazard, yourself) there is not much more there beyond propaganda. The same people who are rattling about this are the same people who were rattling about Saddam. The same people who cried wolf four years ago, knowing that there was no substance to it. I for one am not willing to trust them this time. Perhps we should encourage, using your Churchill logic, Iran to nuke the USA before they attack any other nations. You logic is flawed.
I don't buy any of your other arguments either re:Iran. I'm sorry but the concept of a "polish" revolution in Iraq is simply a fantasy. The government is overwhelmingly popular and the way he is handing the USA simply adds to that. Its a fantasy, an ideologue nonsense in the same way Cheney sold you the welcome with flowers in Iraq nonsense.
The thing is, it is hypocrisy because you hold yourself to much higher standards than the nasty people of history that you yourself are comparing your country to, and I believe that at the core those ideals are still held dear, but so often your nation, in pursuing those ideals has fallen to the same level as those it seeks to criticise. You invade Iraq under false pretenses and directly or indirectly take the lives of god knows how many innocents; you arm and support Israel which has an appalling human rights record and support them as they oppress, bomb, rocket, imprison, massacre, disenfranchise and destroy a people (and you wonder why they throw suicide bombers at your "infidels", I guess they don't have the Apaches to fire the bombs from afar); you support certain nations in their nuclear ambitions against the wishes of the world but condemn others for doing the same thing; you refuse to comply with international treaties and agreements when they don't suit but insist others do.
I'm afraid the accusation of hypocrisy still stands.
-
James, I smell deja -vu...
AFP CIA analysis finds no Iranian nuclear weapons drive: report
19 November 2006
WASHINGTON - A classified draft CIA assessment has found no firm evidence of a secret drive by Iran to develop nuclear weapons, as alleged by the White House, a top US investigative reporter said on Saturday.Seymour Hersh, writing in an article for the November 27 issue of the magazine The New Yorker released in advance, reported on whether the administration of Republican President George W. Bush was more, or less, inclined to attack Iran after Democrats won control of Congress last week.
A month before the November 7 legislative elections, Hersh wrote, Vice President Dick Cheney attended a national-security discussion that touched on the impact of Democratic victory in both chambers on Iran policy.
“If the Democrats won on November 7th, the vice president said, that victory would not stop the administration from pursuing a military option with Iran,” Hersh wrote, citing a source familiar with the discussion.
Cheney said the White House would circumvent any legislative restrictions “and thus stop Congress from getting in its way,” he said.
The Democratic victory unleashed a surge of calls for the Bush administration to begin direct talks with Iran.
But the administration’s planning of a military option was made ”far more complicated” in recent months by a highly classified draft assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency “challenging the White House’s assumptions about how close Iran might be to building a nuclear bomb,” he wrote.
whole lot more at the link
-
James, it is fairly clear from your posts that you'll follow the Republican line regardless. It's frustating to read all the false and crass analogies (ie comparing leftists to Communists, Iran to Hitlers regime,) and outright lies (__"Most countries the USD supports with foreign or military aid and equipment are reasonable countries"__.... yeah like the Iranian Contras... the Taleban... Pinochet... let's count all the evil regimes propped up my American interests) and know that you'll never accept that any of the axioms you base your world-view on could be wrong.
That has been the problem with the US administration - the refusal to accept that they could be wrong, even when the experts say otherwise (eg the strategy in Iraq), and they continue to manipulate the public to support their agenda (eg the non-existant link between Saddam and Bin Laden). It's as if in the process of generating the lies that support their hegemony they have come to believe that facts don't matter all that much.
I mean, please, you're so adament that the Federal Emergency Management Agency is not actually the agency responsible for the management of federal emergencies. But hey, who cares right? Lets play pass the buck one more time.
-
So, Iran isn't really developing the bomb - it’s all some UN inspired conspiracy. Right. Just like psycho Armadinajad didn't really deny the holocaust and doesn't really want to destroy Israel, even though that's what he says every other day.
But the funniest bit is "And please don't bring up appeasement of Hitler, your nation didn't exactly take a stand there." Yeah, those evil Americans, what did they do to oppose Hitler? Maybe a visit to the beaches of Normandy would be of benefit to some.
And then there's Vichy France and Russia's non aggression pact with Hitler. Its little wonder they both wound up opposing Saddam's overthrow.
There are 2 sides at the moment. One side believes the US is the root of all evil. The other believes the US is a flawed democracy standing up to dictatorships like Saddam, North Korea etc.
I chose flawed deomcracy over dictatorship.
-
Neil, I buy the flawed democracy too, just not as unquestioningly as you I guess. That sort of blind faith has cost several hundred lives in Iraq so far.
And I'm not unaware of the American (and Allied) effort in Normandy but that was not the period James was talking about..if you are going to make snide comments at least work out your timelines first so you don't look so silly.
I'm happy to debate this with James, he seems a reasonable sort of guy and as much as i disagree with what he is saying he puts his points well and without derision. Sadly ,I can't say the same for you.
-
I should say, since I can't efit..several hundred thousand lives in Iraq...
-
But the funniest bit is "And please don't bring up appeasement of Hitler, your nation didn't exactly take a stand there." Yeah, those evil Americans, what did they do to oppose Hitler? Maybe a visit to the beaches of Normandy would be of benefit to some.
Yes - thank goodness the US decided to stand up to Germany before they could cause any REAL harm.
-
Yes - thank goodness the US decided to stand up to Germany before they could cause any REAL harm.
Post WWII, the Yanks recognized that they had screwed up by being isolationist in the 1930s. Truman's containment policy toward the Soviet Union was a result of that understanding.
Back on the "What happens next" subject, here is an thoughtful article that is worth a read.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/will_the_west_stumble.html
Here is some positive news from Iraq that you wont see anywhere in the media in NZ or the US.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/2976
Simon,
I have to say I wouldn't bet five cents on a word Seymor Hersh writes. Sometimes he gets close to getting it right, but other times, more frequently, he gets it so wrong it is sad.There isn't any dispute over the existence of Iran's nuke program, only uncertainty over how close they are to being able to produce their own bombs. I saw it reported just the other day the IAEA found traces of plutonium at an Iranian site, and previously traces of highly enriched uranium have been found. Giving the current Iranian regime the benefit of the doubt as to how far along it is in its quest for nukes and what its intentions are once they have nukes is a huge, high stakes gamble. I don't understand why anyone would take that bet.
-
First line of James link:
While the Democrats push for America’s complete surrender to Al Qaeda in Iraq . . .
Have to admit I stopped reading at about that point.
-
Danyl,
Try reading something that doesn't fit your view of things every now and again and challenge your understanding of things. I do it frequently and it is very worthwhile.That link you dismissed has some quotes from soldiers on the ground in Iraq, I suspect they might know a thing or two more about what is really happening in Iraq than you and I do.
-
Hi James,
I do make an effort to read things that don't fit my view of the world (I'm currently reading 'The War of the World' by conservative historian Niall Ferguson. I read David Farrars blog every day).
What I don't read is brainless partisan hackery that sounds like it was written by an unusually ignorant and ill-informed nine year old.
So my advice to you is to try reading something by someone who isn't just a cheerleading shill for a political party. I do it frequently and it is very worthwhile.
-
Danyl,
I read stuff by reasoned and calm people who do or do not fit my view of the world, and I read stuff by people who shoot their mouths off and partisans of both sides as well. Calm sounding people or non partisans do not have a monopoly on wisdom and insight. When you read or listen to these types, you obviously need to maintain an appropriate level of skepticism, but there is plenty to be gained.
In this case the guy had some interesting stuff from soldiers on the ground in Iraq; you did yourself a disservice by dismissing it. -
Hi James,
I read it (with some reservations RCP is up there with Newsmax and Freerepublic in the loopy hard right-sphere) and sadly found it to be a bunch of xenophobic nonsense based on the half baked assumptions that are bounced around the nuttier edges of the US right. I'm sorry James but if I didn't know better I'd assume in was a parody of the American right."Intelligence sources announce that Iran is seeking to replace al Qaeda as the foremost anti-Western global terrorist organization"...really? Which ones. Doe he have a link or is this paranoid supposition. Oh and Iran is a country not an "organization". It's semantics I know but really James that article was garbage wasn't it..seriously...
iAs to the second, more good news from Iraq nonsense. Ramaldi may be our "Battle of the Bulge!!!" I'd laugh out loud if these people were not so deadly serious...there are still people who think like this? How many Iraqis are gonna die in this little good news escapade? How many does it take to make these sort of people feel good. Darryl may not have read further but he didn't miss much.God, even Kissinger has admitted what everyone else knows...you lost, its a mess, its over....159 Iraqis died yesterday (that we know of and 50 Coalition soldiers this month and you are, if that link is to be believed, teetering, against all available evidence and logic, on the brink of success? I'm sorry James but you can't on one hand dismiss Hersh (with sources like Richard Armatidge..not my favourite man but a hell of an inside contact) and the others he quotes...Hersh may not always be spot on but his record historically is pretty good..and then counter with things like those two links. I can't take them seriously.
-
James said
I don't understand why anyone would take that bet.
No I agree...50,000,000 Americans took that bet on Bush and 200,000/ 300,000 / 600,000 ..you chose.. the numbers are petty ugly either way...Iraqis are dead now with god knows how many to come. All based on a series of lies.
And now we are supposed to assume that the same people have learned to tell the truth?
No one doubts that the Iranians have a program to produce nuclear something but we don't know what. I too would rather not take that risk but one thing is certain, if it is a bomb the Bush administration has shown that the are neither competent or globally responsible enough to handle it.
Stop threatening these people, stop making ludicrous accusations, and treating this sovereign nation of some 70 million as satanic and talk to them. Do what the rest of the world does and trade with them. Take your warships and troops away from their borders. Then we might make a little progress. They might start feeling a little less threatened by you and stop referring to you as the Great Satan. Repeated overtures have been made by Iran to the US which have been arrogantly and stupidly rebuffed. Although I guess when you get idiots like that guy you quoted in RCP getting published (lets face it it most countries people would simply laugh at him and walk away) there may be a way to go before common sense prevails.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.