Subtlety is not one of my strengths

Welcome to Small.To v2.0
Thursday, July 19 2018

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Sing it next time, brother!
Authored by: dbsmall onMonday, March 31 2003
norcalfella: I guess your disdain for rationality in politics should have been the first clue. But I didn\'t get it. For conservatives, logic, evidence, reasoning aren\'t needed. It\'s all based on faith. Their political views are actually their religion, eh? Thank you. With your one word, you\'ve enlightened me.

I hope it\'s no too blasphemous to weed through soildork\'s sermon and pull out the parts relevant to the original story (vs. the devotional \"speaking in tongues\" he dedicates to praising GWB or exorcising Clinton.)

The relevant parts (and my responses) are:

\"The simple fact is that the fanatics, the \"anti-American zealots, as Mr. Schlesinger refers to them, still made plans to assassinate the beloved Clinton on his trip to Indonesia (Al Qaeda), still attacked our embassies (Kenya and Tanzania), still attacked our country (WTC take 1, not 9/11).\" --->Right. Iraq. Al Queda. Right. Saddam = ObL. Right. You\'re right. Iraq has attacked us repeatedly.

<Some nonsense about why we\'re hated, which is mostly inaccurate but which doesn\'t relate to the original story...>

\"Mr. Schlesinger makes a failed attempt to reinforce the idea that \"containment plus deterrence\" is the proper foreign policy, simple because we won the Cold War. This is a distortion of the facts as well. We had to fight on a few fronts to check the Communist totalitarianism expansion. Is that merely deterrence? I guess it is convenient to forget Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. The Cold War ended because the other side was as scared as we were, and saw mutual deescalation as the only alternative to all out Global catastrophe\"-->That\'s a distortion of the facts, as well. The Cold War ended because the other side ran out of money. The Cold War ended because Capitalism is King.

\"As an editorial, that is Harvard for you. We Princeton folk aren\'t nearly as obtuse. Harvard leans so far left that they would probably have taken offense ot \"One if by land, two if by sea...\"-->A HA...I knew I had heard some of your fallacious (but highly entertaining) reasoning before. Y\'all must be a member of the Paul Revere Society. Yeah, I\'m a fan too, but apparently for different reasons.

We agree on some things:
1) Saddam\'s a punk
2) He\'s bad for his own country

But I think the historian\'s interview was less about \"why they hate us\" and whether we should attack Iraq, and more about our international relations, and how we\'ve failed prior to attacking.

\'cause look. If the war were purely about oil, women\'s rights, religous freedom, freedom from opression, terrorist funding, or WMD, we wouldn\'t have attacked Iraq. We\'d be bombing the Saudis, who exceed Wham-Bam-Saddam on almost every \"bad guy\" scale.

No, as always, it\'s about money.

- The money that will go to U.S. companies to rebuild Iraq.
- The money that the oilmen cronies of the White House will make off of Iraq (they already have business arrangements with the Saudis, so they needn\'t have war...)
- The wag-the-dog distraction from a floundering economy in the U.S.

I just hope we do what we can to allow our capitalism to conquer other countries. Instead of acquiring burdensome debt, we pay our bills and win by being better businessmen. (zen8tao is fond of suggesting that, instead of fighting evil regimes with guns, we should just airdrop Playboys, McDonald\'s franchises, etc. and they\'d willingly become the 51st state.)