Michele Bachmann: Spectacle or Prophet?

[Kuya]

ANJALI KAMAT: Afghan President Hamid Karzai had harsh words for US and NATO forces on Tuesday in the wake of a string of attacks that has killed dozens of civilians. His comments came in an interview on Al Jazeera.
PRESIDENT HAMID KARZAI: We are going to ask the international community to end nighttime raids on Afghan homes. We are going to ask them to stop arresting Afghans. We are going to ask them to reduce and eliminate civilian casualties. We are going to ask them not to have Afghan prisoners taken. Those are the most sensitive areas of sovereignty for any nation, and we want to have that sovereignty retained and taken back.


ANJALI KAMAT: On Monday, hundreds of people, mostly students, protested in Kabul and in the province of Nangarhar against the US killing of civilians. Nearly thirty civilians have died over the past two weeks alone in US-led air strikes and ground operations.

But the incident that has sparked the most outrage took place in eastern Kunar province on December 27th, when ten Afghans, eight of them schoolchildren, were killed. According to the Times of London, US-led troops dragged innocent children from their beds and shot them during a nighttime raid. Afghan government investigators said the eight students were aged from eleven to seventeen, all but one of them from the same family. The headmaster of the local school said seven of the children were handcuffed and then executed. A preliminary investigation by the United Nations reinforced Afghan claims that most of the dead were schoolboys.

To think, this whole mess started when the US and Russia decided to play their little proxy war in Afghanistan.

[Beckwin]

At first glance, you're correct. However if you examine the deaths from wars over our history versus the deaths from cancer (I dont think either of us have accurate numbers for either total, just hypothetically), you can see that changing the way we wage war and thus conduct policy can and will directly effect "lives lost per year".

At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War. http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm

The total number of deaths iin World War One includes 9.7 million military personnel and about 6.8 million civilians (From wiki)

World War II casualty statistics vary greatly. Estimates of total dead range from 50 million to over 70 million (from wiki). Can you fathom 70 million deaths? I cant.

Thats not counting the Korean war, Vietnam, and the 50 other skirmishes recently and thats ONLY considering the last century of human history (except the civil war which was a bit earlier)..

Advancing our technology has completely changed the way governments wage political war, economic war, and military war. Thousands have died due to the invention of the atomic bomb, but how many millions have been saved via conflicts it has stopped? Do you think the cold war would have been the same without mutuall assured destruction? Do you think more lives would be saved if we still had trench warfare? If we still had entire carrier groups taken out in a battle?

The defense work I do has the potential to save millions of lives via the effect such techonology has on policy, not just "making less colateral damage".

Y'know how to save even more lives? Don't do shit like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

It's interesting you bring up trench warfare... advances in military tech took the fight out of trenches... and ended up flattening cities/completely razing them.

Then tech advances leading up to Vietnam took us out of conventional tank warfare... and we had great new ways to blow things up/burn things down and use chemicals that caused generations of medical problems.

Then our politics and economics "advanced", taking us out of prolonged open conflicts and shifting focus to puppeteering proxy battles and focused economic warfare... now we could starve civilians and let poor brown people kill other poor brown people for us.

and now our political/economic model of warfare has advanced further... we do pretty much the above but try to put a positive brand on it (oh look, our smart bombs are humane, compared to an atom bomb) and then auction off our "stabilization" projects to private firms while ensuring that open markets have the first priority, stable democracy second. we've turned instability into a commodity. and weapon advances are just grease in the physical and economic gears that keep it all spinning.

yeah man, that's progress. that's saving lives.

I want to encourage you to take a look at how you're rationalizing weapons advancements.

[Leif]

You don't say?



YOU DON'T SAY?

Anti-abortion killings: 6
source:wikipedia

Killings by Muslim extremists: 6,809+
*Since 1993. not including casualties of the war on terror, source: Wikipedia




The problem is not even on the same scale.

There are more murders each year because someone was having a bad day and decided to take it out on the first green-haired person they saw.

[Beckwin]

so how 'bout that Bachmann? what a crazy fucking nutjob

[Zalius]

nah dog its all chill 6804 of those were suicide bombers

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Anti-abortion killings: 6
source:wikipedia

Killings by Muslim extremists: 6,809+
*Since 1993. not including casualties of the war on terror, source: Wikipedia




The problem is not even on the same scale.

There are more murders each year because someone was having a bad day and decided to take it out on the first green-haired person they saw.

so muslims are more organized and efficient than evangelist christians. you maaaaaaaaad

[Kuya]

For good measure:

A soldier of the Afghan army shot an American soldier, further raising suspicions between the two supposed partners. Then a Canadian unit and embedded journalist were blown up.

There were more errant US strikes over the weekend, producing the demonstrations in Kabul and Jalalabad on Monday morning.

Then there were two other pieces of information coming out in the past few days that suggest all is not well.

First, a report on the Afghanistan Army threw cold water all over the idea that it could be enlarged and trained to provide security in the country any time soon. High desertion rates, illiteracy, working half days, refusal to stand and fight against the enemy, and other factors just made that prospect remote. But such training, and the substitution of the Afghan National Army for NATO and US forces is the centerpiece of the Obama-McChrystal plan.

Finally, the Afghan parliament rejected 17 of the 24 nominees to the cabinet offered by President Karzai. The speaker of the House, Yunus Qanuni, supported Karzai's rival, Abdullah Abdullah, in August's presidential elections-- which many Afghans believe Karzai stole. This rejection was the Abdullah faction's chance to humiliate Karzai in revenge.

So, the US is killing schoolchildren far too often, enraging the Afghan public. It has provoked a student protest movement against it in Jalalabad and Kabul. Its informants are double agents. Its supposed partner, the Afghan army, mostly doesn't actually exist and couldn't be depended on to show up to anything important; and that is when they aren't taking potshots at US troops; and there is no Afghan government as we go into 2010.

President Obama may have a lot on his plate, but Afghanistan could make or break his presidency. If he doesn't view what has happened there while he was in Hawaii with alarm and begin thinking of alternative strategies, he could be in big trouble.

[Seraph]

Y'know how to save even more lives? Don't do shit like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

It's interesting you bring up trench warfare... advances in military tech took the fight out of trenches... and ended up flattening cities/completely razing them.

Then tech advances leading up to Vietnam took us out of conventional tank warfare... and we had great new ways to blow things up/burn things down and use chemicals that caused generations of medical problems.

Then our politics and economics "advanced", taking us out of prolonged open conflicts and shifting focus to puppeteering proxy battles and focused economic warfare... now we could starve civilians and let poor brown people kill other poor brown people for us.

and now our political/economic model of warfare has advanced further... we do pretty much the above but try to put a positive brand on it (oh look, our smart bombs are humane, compared to an atom bomb) and then auction off our "stabilization" projects to private firms while ensuring that open markets have the first priority, stable democracy second. we've turned instability into a commodity. and weapon advances are just grease in the physical and economic gears that keep it all spinning.

yeah man, that's progress. that's saving lives.

I want to encourage you to take a look at how you're rationalizing weapons advancements.

I feel like you are bitching at the guy who is actively trying to make the situation better over there. I usually don't agree with Neo on much, but I think you are trying way to hard to apply your 'war is bad' mentality against the work Neo is trying to accomplish. Pacifism doesn't automatically equate to peace.

Give the poor fucker some credit for actually having the balls to try to make things better by putting his own ass on the line, as opposed to you dickriding your own ideals while you sit there and imagine how lovely a perfect world would be.

[6souls]

http://tildology.com/wp-content/uplo..._blachmann.jpg

Michele Bachmann Tells Michael Steele: "You Be Da Man!"

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen...EELE-large.jpg

After a long day at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele gave a speech asserting that the party is "alive and well."

Although he emphasized that the conservative movement must become a revolution and transform America, he conceded that the party had made mistakes: "We know the past, we know we did wrong. My bad. But we go forward in appreciation of the values that brought us to this point."

According to CNN, Steele was then praised by Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.

As Steele concluded his remarks, Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachmann -- the event's moderator -- told Steele he was "da man."


"Michael Steele! You be da man! You be da man," she said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_170426.html

[Elvis]

Anti-abortion killings: 6
source:wikipedia

Killings by Muslim extremists: 6,809+
*Since 1993. not including casualties of the war on terror, source: Wikipedia

The problem is not even on the same scale.

There are more murders each year because someone was having a bad day and decided to take it out on the first green-haired person they saw.

Great logic. And your source is Wiki.

So you literally mean deaths that a radical is responsible for with his 'bare hands' so to speak.

You are clinically fucking stupid.

[6souls]

A letter from a Bachmann supporter;

West Central Tribune:

These days I am not in the habit of defending any politician, because most of them disgust me.

However, in Michele Bachmann’s case I would put in a good word. Bachmann is first and foremost a true Christian. She knows Jesus Christ as her personal savior. She is secondly a pro-lifer. Third, she truly loves this country and is doing what she can to preserve its true heritage and freedom.

If it is true that she has labeled President Obama a socialist, then it must be because the president’s policies, at the very least, have a socialistic flavor to them. Is Bachmann against unprecedented government handouts? Yes, and so am I. Is she against rewarding irresponsible behavior? Yes, and so am I. Has she been supporting the Tea Party? Yes, and so do I.

If Barbara Edwards (Public Forum, Jan. 5) wants to be accurate in regard to personifying snake-oil salesmen, she would do well to take a closer look at the likes of Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and Vice President Joe Biden, just to name a few.

Victor Young

Spicer

http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/201...rites-lte.html

So, is anyone going to the Tea Party convention in February? No? Come-on, its only $500+ per person...

Remember last week, after the Democrats told C-Span that they would not allow its cameras to record the House and Senate conference committee as it hashed out differences in health care reform legislation, that Rep. Michele Bachmann called bullshit? She warned that the Democrats who control the process wanted to avoid public scrutiny.

Will she now castigate teabaggers for what appears to be a desire to avoid public scrutiny at the National Tea Party Convention scheduled for February in Nashville?

Only a few, favored members of the media will be able to get credentials to cover an event whose patrons hope to use it as a springboard for altering the national political landscape.

"No word on who or how many," writes Kevin Diaz in the Star Tribune. "This from the people who brought us last summer's media-saturated Town Hall meetings."

Convention spokesman Judson Phillips told the Dump Bachmann blog, "I don't want the sessions disrupted and overrun with the media."

Bachmann, and Sarah Palin, who is fresh off her deal to pontificate on Fox News, are scheduled to appear at the convention.

Tickets for the event cost more than $500. According to Politico, 600 are available, compared to the 9,000 available for last year's Conservative Political Action Conference.

The whole production is starting to give some conservative activists the willies.

RedState's Erik Erikson has asked the event's organizers to stop using his influential Web site's logo in association with the event. And he reports that several sponsors are starting to get worried, too:

"Charging people $500 plus the costs of travel and lodging to go to a "National Tea Party Convention" run by a for profit group no one has ever heard of sounds as credible as an e-mail from Nigeria promising me a million bucks."

A Tennessee teabagger interviewed by Politico said he didn't think the convention represented the movement.

"Most tea party people won't be there because they can't afford it," he said.

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2...rofit_teab.php

The full post from Erick Erickson;

Spoiler: show

I’m Afraid Sarah Palin Might Be Ruining Herself Unintentionally

I swore I was going to keep my mouth shut on this, but I keep getting emails from people along the lines of “if you don’t say it, who will?”

Yeah, I guess I have become that guy.

I am afraid Sarah Palin is going to harm herself unintentionally over this tea party convention in Nashville.

Full disclosure: I have asked several of the tea party organizations that, early on, I was supportive of to stop using my name and RedState’s logo. I think the tea party movement has largely descended into ego and quest for purpose for individuals at the expense of what the tea party movement started out to be.

That’s not to say it is in every case. I have much good to say about groups like Tea Party Patriots, but I think this national tea party convention smells scammy.

Let me be blunt: charging people $500.00 plus the costs of travel and lodging to go to a “National Tea Party Convention” run by a for profit group no one has ever heard of sounds as credible as an email from Nigeria promising me a million bucks if I fork over my bank account number.

I am led to believe a number of the sponsors who lent their names early on have grown wary of the event. That lines up with what I am hearing.

The tea party movement was always about the unorganized masses of concerned, passionate Americans uniting together with a common voice to protest the direction of the country. From that passion, others have sought to make money off the tea party movement. Some have done it for good. Many have not. And more and more we are seeing some people rise up to claim the mantle of “leader” of the tea party movement. Many of us who have been around for a while just want to know who the heck these so called leaders are.

The tea party “leaders”, if there are any, are actively at work in their home towns changing things one letter to the editor, one contribution to a candidate, and one protest at a time. They are not on bus tours profiting off the hard work and sometimes the names of others (some also on the bus with no pay) headed to Nashville licking their lips at the $500.00 per person payments coming in to their for profit company.

Sarah Palin is certainly giving the National Tea Party Convention legitimacy. But at what cost? I am fearful this thing will blow up and harm her. I am more fearful that a bunch of well meaning people from across the nation are going to show up, expect more, and then grow disaffected or burn out when the deliverables they expect do not come in.

I hope I am wrong about all of this. I could be. But something tells me I am right. And because no one else will say it, I will — I think Sarah Palin got some bad advice and probably should have done more due diligence. Your mileage may vary.

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/0...intentionally/

And the Politico article;

Spoiler: show

'The Tea Party Movement Is About To Be Hijacked': Activists Slam Plan For Convention

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ass...o-custom_2.jpg

In the latest sign of rancor in Tea Party circles, a convention billed as an effort to bring together conservative activists from across the country is being attacked by some leading Tea Partiers as inauthentic, too tied to the GOP, and -- at $549 per head -- too expensive for the working Americans the movement aspires to represent.

The National Tea Party Convention, scheduled for early February in Nashville, grabbed headlines after announcing that Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann would appear as speakers, Palin as the keynote. According to a message on the convention's website, the event "is aimed at bringing the Tea Party Movement leaders together from around the nation." But organizers are a long way from unifying the notoriously fractious movement.

Tea Party Patriots, which helped put together a September rally that drew tens of thousands to Washington, view the confab -- which is being held at Nashville's swank Opryland Gaylord hotel -- as the "usurpation of a grassroots movement," according to Mark Meckler, a leader of the group. "Most people in our movement can't afford anything like that," Meckler told TPMmuckraker, referring to the price tag. "So it's really not aimed at the average grassroots person."

Robin Stublen, a Tea Party Patriots volunteer, echoed that view. "This convention is $550 dollars," said Stublen. "How grassroots is that?"

Indeed, one conservative activist who has organized Tea Parties with several local groups told TPMmuckraker that even though she lives in the Nashville area, she still can't afford to attend. "To me its not worth it," said Toni, who blogs at Bear Creek Ledger and asked that her last name not be used. "I'm not gonna throw my money around for that."

"The Tea Party I know never had $1000 to pay for anything," another conservative activist told TPMmuckraker.

The high cost may be driven by the speakers' fees that organizers are shelling out. One activist who is familiar with organizers' plans told TPMmuckraker that Palin is being paid $100,000, much of which is said to have been raised by wealthy local donors. That figure could not be confirmed.

The convention's prime organizer, Nashville criminal defense lawyer Judson Phillips, founded Tea Party Nation, a for-profit company that runs a networking site for activists. Phillips, a former local prosecutor, didn't respond to several requests for comment, but he told Politico that the convention was intended to make a profit so that Tea Party Nation can "funnel money back into conservative causes" through a 527 group it plans to set up.

Mark Skoda, another of the activists behind the event, told TPMmuckraker that the fees were required to pay for the event's costs. He added that Tea Party Nation had urged volunteers to have their local Tea Party group sponsor their attendance -- an idea that Stublen derided as inconsistent with the concept of personal fiscal responsibility that the movement professes. Skoda declined to comment on Palin's fee, citing "the non-disclosure of speakers contracts."

Lurking beneath the concerns about the price-tag are vaguer fears. First, that Phillips and his allies are using the convention to boost their group's resources and its profile within the movement.

"The tea party movement is a grass-roots movement; it's not a business," one skeptical Tennesee Tea Partier declared to Politico.

"Who are they and what do they stand for?" another conservative activist asked TPMmuckraker, describing Phillips as "someone who is trying to make a grab."

Perhaps even more unnerving to some activists, though, is the prospect that Tea Party Nation may be co-opting the movement -- which prides itself on its independence and authenticity -- on behalf of a professional political class with ties to the GOP.

It hasn't been lost on members of the Tea Party Patriots that the Tea Party Express -- which is run by a group of well-connected GOP consultants and who the Patriots already view as a group of astroturf parvenus -- will be at the convention. Perhaps even worse: though Phillips has said that Tea Party Nation isn't working with the Republican party, one activist told TPMmuckraker, with disapproval, that organizers had voted to invite RNC chair Michael Steele to speak. Skoda said he did not know whether such a decision had been made, but that he would support the idea. The RNC did not say whether Steele has received an invitation.

"The Tea Party Movement is about to be hijacked," wrote one activist in an online comment recently. "TeaPartyNation.com orgaziners are hard lined GOP who use the proverbial veil of 'conservatism' to attract supporters."

Stublen echoed that suspicion. "I think what we have in the movement is the GOP trying to take control, and a lot of the groups are trying to fight them on this," he told TPMmuckraker. Stublen described the convention as "too GOP" and Phillips as "too politically connected."

Stublen also said he viewed with distrust two Phillips allies with ties to the GOP. Michael Patrick Leahy, a delegate to the 2008 Republican convention, founded Top Conservatives On Twitter, which has been embraced by Beltway Republicans like Karl Rove. And Eric Odom, whose Liberty American Liberty Alliance is a co-sponsor of the convention, is a professional conservative organizer.

"I think they're all good people," said Stublen. "But I question the motive in this."

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmem...jacked_act.php

Ahh, I guess the Tea Party convention has already been sold out.
http://www.nationalteapartyconvention.com/

But don't you worry, there is still spots available for the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference. prices range from $50-750.
http://www.cpac.org/

[Nekio]

I feel like you are bitching at the guy who is actively trying to make the situation better over there. I usually don't agree with Neo on much, but I think you are trying way to hard to apply your 'war is bad' mentality against the work Neo is trying to accomplish. Pacifism doesn't automatically equate to peace.

Give the poor fucker some credit for actually having the balls to try to make things better by putting his own ass on the line, as opposed to you dickriding your own ideals while you sit there and imagine how lovely a perfect world would be.

Cheers.

It's fucking retarded to say "you're part of a military that kills civilians, therefore you support said killing." Every working American funnels their weekly paycheck into that very military knowingly and willingly. The difference is, some of those Americans decide to actually try to limit how much of their money is being spent on killing civilians, in a way that's practical and realistic: By fucking going over there, getting shot at, and influencing the operations personally. And for the record, the populaces being referred to don't hate the US military, they just hate the US. But what do I know? I mean, it's not like the major targets of organized violence directed against the US have been directed at peace-loving civilians, amirite?

Yeah, in a perfect world the entire roster of the US military would go on strike with a haughty "fuck war". Unfortunately, in this eerie place called "real life" there will always be grunts willing to shoot up a mud hut for free college and lifelong medical insurance.

[Elvis]

Cheers.

It's fucking retarded to say "you're part of a military that kills civilians, therefore you support said killing." Every working American funnels their weekly paycheck into that very military knowingly and willingly. The difference is, some of those Americans decide to actually try to limit how much of their money is being spent on killing civilians, in a way that's practical and realistic: By fucking going over there, getting shot at, and influencing the operations personally. And for the record, the populaces being referred to don't hate the US military, they just hate the US. But what do I know? I mean, it's not like the major targets of organized violence directed against the US have been directed at peace-loving civilians, amirite?

Yeah, in a perfect world the entire roster of the US military would go on strike with a haughty "fuck war". Unfortunately, in this eerie place called "real life" there will always be grunts willing to shoot up a mud hut for free college and lifelong medical insurance.

I'm sure a lot of people over there hate us - and not simply the military. Think of the people here who hate all Muslims and all Arabs.

Think of our culture, and our movies and television shows. How do they portray Arabs and Muslims in general?

There have been studies and books produced on our attitudes of the other via Western cultural institutions like 'Hollywood'.

This isn't an equal conflict. It's not like they invaded our country and subjected us to all that we've subjected them to. And yes, at the same time, they have a tremendous amount of internal problems.

The Arab world is still recovering from the effects of colonialism.

And we're not helping by supporting theocracies like Saudi Arabia. Family dictatorships. Jordan and Egypt. Etc.

After Operation Cast Lead, the US and Israel both came out against the UN report on the 'war' (massacre). I think they used the usual antisemitism-card. An entire report is apparently just a piece of Jew-bashing.

There is a great divide in perspectives between us and them.

A lot of these discussions on the Internets is based on conjecture and feelings.

Rather than on responsible 'personal' historiography. I challenge people for example, to read up more on Israel-Palestine. Try to reconcile what you read w/ what you get from our MSM and our intellectual culture.

Think of the movie Exodus. Now compare that movie to Benny Morris's 1948.

Just think of the question Leif and the other guy posed about Islamic radicalism.

How is Christian radicalism - which is mainstream and accepted - any different (if not more effective often) than Islamic radicalism?

The Christian Right don't have to blow themselves up because they have the capacity to raise large amounts of money and simply send it directly to paramilitary/death squads. That's what they did in Central and Latin America in the 80s.

There are so many other examples.

People won't even read this stuff though because it contradicts their ideology.

People still don't believe that Palestinians were ethnically cleansed by the Jewish militias and the newly formed (at the time) 'Israeli' army in 48' and onwards.

And we have people in our 'civilized' society who support the continued colonization of Palestine. The settlement expansion and such. The continued military support of Israel.

Sarah Palin said she supports the settlements and she is not a marginal figure in the Right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln4vSV3KlOM

What kind of reason is that to expand these settlements, which are illegal and a plain and simple example of colonialism?

Muslims and Arabs see this stuff up close and across State-lines, on Al Jazeera. What do you think THEY think of us and OUR political system?

[Beckwin]

I feel like you are bitching at the guy who is actively trying to make the situation better over there. I usually don't agree with Neo on much, but I think you are trying way to hard to apply your 'war is bad' mentality against the work Neo is trying to accomplish. Pacifism doesn't automatically equate to peace.

Give the poor fucker some credit for actually having the balls to try to make things better by putting his own ass on the line, as opposed to you dickriding your own ideals while you sit there and imagine how lovely a perfect world would be.

I'm not bitching at the guy, I'm challenging his rationalization of what he's involved in. And Neo is a guy who I fairly often agree with. He's also someone, iirc, who has mentioned that if he could do it all over again he wouldn't have joined, but does value his experiences and comrades. I think the latter part (aka what you've been doing with your life for years and the people you personally value a lot) is a common motivation for rationalizing things in a favorable light- in a way, you have no choice but to do so. But I'm challenging his rationalization because I feel it doesn't portray how things work in the "real world" (the favorite catchphrase of pro-military adventure types).

I didn't insult the guy. I'm not screaming that he's a baby killer. I recognized his good intentions.

You and your dickrider are the ones sounding like "Y DONT U SUPPORT TEH TROOPS!?!?! UR NOT OVER THERE SO SHUTUP"

[Seraph]

I'm not bitching at the guy, I'm challenging his rationalization of what he's involved in. And Neo is a guy who I fairly often agree with. He's also someone, iirc, who has mentioned that if he could do it all over again he wouldn't have joined, but does value his experiences and comrades. I think the latter part (aka what you've been doing with your life for years and the people you personally value a lot) is a common motivation for rationalizing things in a favorable light- in a way, you have no choice but to do so. But I'm challenging his rationalization because I feel it doesn't portray how things work in the "real world" (the favorite catchphrase of pro-military adventure types).

I didn't insult the guy. I'm not screaming that he's a baby killer. I recognized his good intentions.

You and your dickrider are the ones sounding like "Y DONT U SUPPORT TEH TROOPS!?!?! UR NOT OVER THERE SO SHUTUP"

No, I just called you out on your extremely narrow minded rational when commenting on the work Neo is doing by suggesting it's tainted because he is doing it through work in the military. I'm not all 'GO ARMY!' either, but i recognize someone trying to make a positive difference instead of being an asshole about it.

If you were trying to sound supportive, you really dropped the ball on that one, and it just comes off as saving face now. You were even annoyed about what he does when he isn't directly serving in the military.

[Neosutra]

I have some more detailed responses, mostly directed at the accusations that the military advancements have just led to more death and destruction in other ways, but Ill save it for tomorrow (limited connection/electricity at the moment >.>).

However for the moment I would say that many of our advancements have prevented several wars (cold war, war with china, war with a few other countries in the middle east). We may be able to "raze cities and find new ways to blow shit up", but I havent seen many cities leveled in atomic blasts recently and I have a hard time disagreeing with many of the sanctions we have on nations that we apply economic stress on.

I guess I could get a better glimpse on your perspective if you answered these questions: Do you think we should have contributed to the fight against Russia in Afghan during the cold war? Do you think we were right to go into Afghan after the terrorist cells and the sympathetic government that funded them through the massive drug trade? Do you think there is any benefit to the surge in troops (any possibility of stablization and a happy ending for this region)? Do you think there is any benefit for the US and it's allies for that stabilization and another ally in the region?

And most importantly: Do you think the US either actively targets civilians and/or is grossly incompetant with it's missions as to cause untold numbers of innocent deaths (and frankly, im not sure which innocent deaths you're referring too)?

Finally: Do you think defense/weapons research is important? Or important but less so than other research on medicine?

Just trying to get a feel for your perspective.

[Beckwin]

I have some more detailed responses, mostly directed at the accusations that the military advancements have just led to more death and destruction in other ways, but Ill save it for tomorrow (limited connection/electricity at the moment >.>).

However for the moment I would say that many of our advancements have prevented several wars (cold war, war with china, war with a few other countries in the middle east). We may be able to "raze cities and find new ways to blow shit up", but I havent seen many cities leveled in atomic blasts recently and I have a hard time disagreeing with many of the sanctions we have on nations that we apply economic stress on.

Yes, by developing nuclear technology, the powers in the cold war did not openly engage eachother. So while that weapon advancement (which levelled a couple cities) theoretically prevented WWIII, what we had as a result were proxy battles in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan 1, etc. in which millions lost their lives.

Vietnam is perhaps the prime example of us not giving a shit about civilian lives or stabilization in any form that doesn't jive with free-markets and submission to our regional influence. We didn't just wreck the shit out of Vietnam, we burned Laos and actually DEstabilized Cambodia, giving rise to the Khmer Rouge, which somewhat ironically was defeated by Red Vietnam after allied forces exited the Vietnam conflict.

Now you might argue that vietnam was over 30 years ago, but let's take a look at what has happened since then: our support of Pinochet in Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, etc... the Ronald Reagan Administration (Grenada, Lebanon), Iraq 1, Iraqi sanctions and bombings, Iraq 2, Afghanistan (apparently on a 10 year plan with this one). Heavy civilian casualties in all.

Meanwhile, we ignore excessively brutal third world dictatorships that kill hundreds of thousands/millions of their own civilians.

What we're seeing is smaller conflicts, with individual smaller death tolls, but at a high frequency. These conflicts have typically engendered significant civilian casualties. We also frequently ignore massive humanitarian crises (not profitable enough or not important for exerting regional influence. rwanda, for example, wasn't worth a shit by either criterion). So it's reasonable to conclude that the motive of our military actions is not the preservation of innocent civilians, nor is it even strictly about stabilization for a society.

And of course, as Iraq 2 more than any other conflict has shown us, it's certainly not strictly about protecting the United States of America from harm.

Now do I think the Army has some dastardly goal of racking up civilian death tolls? No. But those who make the decisions for what the Army's job to do is have not demonstrated a large concern for civilian lives.

I guess I could get a better glimpse on your perspective if you answered these questions: Do you think we should have contributed to the fight against Russia in Afghan during the cold war? Do you think we were right to go into Afghan after the terrorist cells and the sympathetic government that funded them through the massive drug trade? Do you think there is any benefit to the surge in troops (any possibility of stablization and a happy ending for this region)? Do you think there is any benefit for the US and it's allies for that stabilization and another ally in the region?

And most importantly: Do you think the US either actively targets civilians and/or is grossly incompetant with it's missions as to cause untold numbers of innocent deaths (and frankly, im not sure which innocent deaths you're referring too)?

Finally: Do you think defense/weapons research is important? Or important but less so than other research on medicine?

Just trying to get a feel for your perspective.

Russia's Afghanistan: Overall, no. It would've been smarter to support the socialist democracy before the Russians could take them out. But we were all swept up in Reagan's Cold War, so of course supporting a bunch of religious fundamentalists to fight commies made loads of sense (even though those same guys would be our most hated terrorists within a decade). Russia having Afghanistan wouldn't have changed Gorby's politics much, so I think we'd have still seen the Soviet fall on the same timeline, and in that respect, former Soviet countries have been fairly stable (and have less religious influence).

Afghanistan post9/11: To specifically hunt down terrorist cells? Yes. Topple the Taliban. Yes, they were active supporters of terrorists and committed large scale injustices against their people. Any sort of stabilization doesn't seem likely at the hands of foreign troops. It hasn't worked for 10 years, may not work for 10 more. I think the sobering realization is going to be that what would stabilize the country won't be something we like; it won't be our ideal secularized free democracy. But it will be something that won't need 70,000 troops there for another decade, and it will probably be something better than the Taliban, especially if we can positively influence it- exchanging aid and trade for human rights.

As far as tangible benefit for the US? The truth is it doesn't matter either way. Aside from Bin Laden, Afghanistan hasn't been a blip on our radar since Reagan funded the Mujahideen and before that it was also nothing. Bin Laden could've used other countries.

US Military and Civilian casualties: On a whole, no, I don't think the US military actively tries to rack up a civi death toll, nor do I think that the US military is so grossly incompetent that it just can't help it. I do think that there are some documented exceptions involving disregard and incompetency, and I do think that mission architects (this would be the Washington and maybe some Pentagon folks) do not have civilian lives on high priority. We're talking hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq and tens of thousands in Afghanistan. (and then we can talk about injuries and refugees)

Defense/weapons research: less important than medicine, by far. I also think calling it "defense" is not quite appropriate anymore. I would say it's important only as far as being able to adequately defend the country- needless to say, that can be interpreted on a wide spectrum, but it's obvious that I think we spend way too much on it. and sadly, the ingenuity and potential for defense of the research is tainted by the application of it.

[Beckwin]

No, I just called you out on your extremely narrow minded rational when commenting on the work Neo is doing by suggesting it's tainted because he is doing it through work in the military. I'm not all 'GO ARMY!' either, but i recognize someone trying to make a positive difference instead of being an asshole about it.

If you were trying to sound supportive, you really dropped the ball on that one, and it just comes off as saving face now. You were even annoyed about what he does when he isn't directly serving in the military.

I don't think Neo or I are being assholes here. If anyting, Kuya was getting a bit catty, but he had a fair comparison to make. And it's pretty ridiculous to say that I wasn't being supportive of the guy, when I said I think someone of his convictions and talents could do a lot more good in a different context.

I'm fully aware that once you're in the military, you've got to follow orders. I don't blame Neo individually for the US military still being in Afghanistan. Again, I'm challenging his (empathically understandable) rationalization of the work he's doing now.

But if you wanna try to turn this into some "fuck off nerd not doing anything, real adults understand this" you can fuck right off because you're interrupting the wrong person and the wrong conversation.

[Xno Kappa]

I feel like you are bitching at the guy who is actively trying to make the situation better over there. I usually don't agree with Neo on much, but I think you are trying way to hard to apply your 'war is bad' mentality against the work Neo is trying to accomplish. Pacifism doesn't automatically equate to peace.

Give the poor fucker some credit for actually having the balls to try to make things better by putting his own ass on the line, as opposed to you dickriding your own ideals while you sit there and imagine how lovely a perfect world would be.

This x1000.

[Leif]

Great logic. And your source is Wiki.

So you literally mean deaths that a radical is responsible for with his 'bare hands' so to speak.

You are clinically fucking stupid.

Considering this forum's criteria for "cold hard proof" is the Huffington Post, I think Wikipedia will do in this case.

How am I "clinically fucking stupid"?


LIBERALS, PLEASE EXPLAIN YOURSELVES.