Haezed

An interesting, perhaps prescient, article regarding the parallels between post war Germany and Iraq:

Why don't the dems simply make their points for the historical record and accept that they are going to have to win the Presidency in 2008 to run foreign policy?

Maybe everyone is taking care not to be seen to take advantage of VT. I did see that the Brady's were on one of the Sunday morning shows although I've not seen it yet.

Rush's blatherings aside do not forgive Reid who is actually an elected official. Two wrongs...

Righto. The intelligence communities do not get a "blank check" and they are highly regulated. This was a product of hugely important reforms in the 1970s. See, e.g. Church Committee reports, and this vast Wiki understatement:

Heh. I saw a fitting quote pop up on Google today: "We are none of us infallible--not even the youngest of us." - WH Thompson

I agree she is a serious talent and it irked me to find she is this dim witted. I should have expected it.... ah well.

We see here the inherent advantage of the critic over the those who act. If a person in authority takes decisive action, it is easy to point out how the status quo compares unfavorably to a hypothetical world where action had not been taken. In that alternate reality, problems would have resolved themselves with patience, international cooperation (*cough*darfur*cough*) and simply a better approach in general of which the critic is only too keen to share in detail. This discussion is a good one because it reminds us that it was not a given that GWB would act decively in Afghanistan and we are left to wonder what the world look like if the Taliban had continued to allow terrorism fester in its borders. Other related questions: What if Saddam was still in power? What if Libya had never turned over its nuclear secrets?

Thank you. Exactly. This point was illustrated by the struggle on this board to come up with a label for this damned thing we are doing. One problem is that after the mission as had been set for the troops initially had been accomplished - toppling Saddam - what was left involves more than a generational struggle. It was the remnant of a struggle dating over a thousand years and can't even be named without alienating the vast majority of Muslims who are peacable. The "war to destroy Muslims who still think it's the 700C" would indeed have been counterproductive. We've argued about the use of the word "war" but that's not the bothersome part. We've used the word "war" imprecisely for a long time. We've fought undeclared wars. We've had wars on poverty and on energy dependence. I think everyone knows its a bit of a vague term these days with shifting meanings. The "terror" part is really problematic because here is where we define the enemy. We really can't define the enemy any more precisely except to say it's about "those people" who use terror and that it's not a war against Islam. The truth is that its a "war" - in a meaning that is somewhat more firm than the "war" on poverty" - against those elements of radical islam that would use terrorist methods against us. This wisely goes unsaid and it is a bit ironic to criticize GWB for leaving it unsaid. It may be one of the most diplomatic things he has done. It will only take another 9/11 or worse for neocon to be perceived as middle of the road.

No, the root cause of all social ills is that GWB won't take a stroll with "Pink." It's all so simple now. What is really frightening if you youtube Dear Mr. President is how the song is received by the audience. These are mass crowds and there is something like a spiritual experience in progress as she brays self-indulgent tripe albeit in a wonderful voice from a not too bad body.

The suggestion is being made by others than yourself that 9/11 was no worse than ordinary crimes which we weather in our day to day lives. My post merely pointed out there are other impacts than 3,000+ lives lost. I'm not sure the point that is being made by this comparison. If I view this as no worse than typical crime, I really can't justify doing much of anything. Let's let the normal criminal processes handle the problem along with the CIA. No worries. That's the logical, if unstated, conclusion of the argument. ALWAYS? You assume there is always a choice If war is always a mistake, you would not have invaded Afghanistan to take out the Taliban? Recall that GWB gave them ample time to turn over the 9/11 culprits. They refused.

That is the point of this entire discussion. GWB announced US policy within a few days of 9/11 that we would hold nations who harbor terrorists accountable for the actions of those terrorists. There really is no alternative. If a government can turn the other eye, or even lend some impossible to prove support, to terrorists as they cook up dirty bombs or 9/11 plots. You wouldn't have invaded afghanistan??

More YouTube Magic from Pink. Dear Yep, right after U + UR hand. Pink goes to bed crying every night, I'm sure. At least she's concerned. Damn, Gitmo is really getting crowded these days. I'd pay money to see Pink hear directly what Laura Bush has to say. Here's where it all went wrong. If only he was still an addict. You've just got to laugh. From the authority. The challenge has been issued. Can President Bush avoid the call from the left to meet and walk with Pink? Will this lonely boy who leads our country dare meet her and learn how to properly lead this country? Stay tuned....

A dirty bomb could be a reality any day now with Iran processing. Let's not forget the economic impact of 9/11. In addition to the 3K dead and billions in lost assets, the country shut down for days. Civil aviation was brought to a complete stands still for three days and related industries such as rental cars, travel agencies, all suffered hugely. Then there is the resulting loss of liberty. We are simply not going to stand for another 9/11 or a dirty bomb that requires us to vacate NYC. Life as we know it would change forever and you cannot accurately compare the consequences to normal crime to which our society has already adjusted. Adjusting to a series of 9/11s was never and will never be an option.

Here's moveon.org's attack While we're at it, I want you to see the most despicable, scrape the bottom of the barrel attack piece I've seen yet in any political campaign .

You could argue tha Vietnam wasn't a "war" in the traditional sense of the word because we never invaded the enemy.

And because he was occassionally at odds with GWB.

That's my take too Para. He's not try to make a buck or win votes but to positively influence the culture. Agree with him or not, he shouldn't be roasted alive by gamers for daring to tread on their sacred virtual ground.

These guys thrum on power. I don't see anyone experiencing Saving Private Ryan as some kind of juvenile power trip. I agree that reasonable persons playing "any" game, won't act it out but video games are increasingly immersive and addictive. Again, I think they are rightfully protected by the first amendment BUT that doesn't mean they are immune from criticism if they immerse young people in carnage. Let's start by fairly summarizing Dr. McGraw's argument: Video games don't just communicate the idea of violence. History books do that. Video games are going to increasingly immerse young people in alternate realities (e.g. World of Warcraft with 8MM addicts and climbing) where a virtual existence means more than real world performance. Even non-psychopaths can react negatively to these games - flunking out, neglecting wives and jobs, etc. For the psychopath, I can imagine it would be validating to the worst impusles (and that's all I can do not being an expert in the field) being able to go to a mainstream store and pay $49.99 to buy a popular game in which the objective is to kill people, not evil monsters, and not in a wartime setting, but as a hitman or as a vampire. To pretend that can have no effect, or to say the effect is mere "speculation" seems to me a form of denial. Again, I'm not advocating censorship and I don't think we can dumb down society for fear that a segment will latch onto unhealthy entertainment for the masses and go postal. However, there is nothing at all wrong with calling those who profit from such games to task and, in my case, even being a bit introspective about what I play. I'm ambivalent about gun control. I think there are liberty issues at play in taking away the ability to defend a home with a gun. I don't see it being completely effectve. Waiting periods, restriction of automatic clips, etc, are all fair game as far as I'm concerned.

I wasn't terribly impressed with Mr. Thomson but I think the issues is legitimate and I say this having played a few games myself.

I did but was uncertain of your point. We're all just talking and I don't see the problem. Bascule, as far as Dr. Phil "using" this moment, he's not using it for personal gain; he is using it to make what he perceives to be a personal point. That's just the way it works. When terrorists blow up buildings we talk about terrorism. When trains run off a track, we talk about train safety. Here we are searching for answers. This search shouldn't eclipse the suffering of the VT students, but it has a place.

I'm not sure this is the best way to handle foreign policy.

It is not silly to act on common sense if you are never going to have hard scientific evidence. Sometimes we have to go on what we have as inaction is as much a choice as action. I don't see anyone reasonable watching the first five mintues of saving private ryan and thinking war itself is glorified. Some causes are worth violence. If someone intrudes into my home to kill my family, I would feel I have a sufficient cause for violence. We had a worth while cause in WWII, S. Korea, Gulf War I and in Afghanistan. You seem to assume we can't reason to differences between these causes and this psychopath. I am listening and I have no problem with Dr. Phil expressing his opinion.

Fortunately, the population to be studied of these mass murders is sufficiently low that I doubt we'll ever have "solid scientific support" as to whether there is a link between games and their actions. I'm not a huge Dr. Phil fan (seen him exactly twice on TV) but I think he poses a credible theory which may be untestable and is probably a moot point given the first amendment. The glorification of war point is a bit lame. I've actually noticed a healthy and more realistic trend in this regard - flags of our fathers, saving private ryan, letters from Iwo Jima - the current war movie does not glorify the act of war although it does honor the sacrifice made.