Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

clark · 2004-12-09 12:19:15

Hmmm... last I checked, the Guard was supposed to defend the homeland. They bring these guys out for national emergencies- like floods and hurricanes.

Now they're being integrated into full battle units and getting last dibs on equipment? Pardon me, but how in the hell does that make any sense?

National Guard and Reservists compose 40% of the forces over in Iraq. They are being used to do things that regular army is supposed to do- yet get less equipment to do it.

I'm sorry, this is just a case of FUBAR, plain and simple.

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-09 12:31:42

From the article Bill linked:

"It is time for the FCC to re-examine whether some sort of public right of access is required under the Communications Act and the First Amendment."

Or... we could abolish the FCC, auction off the frequencies (which the government has been planning to do anyway) and let the market decide. Guaranteeing a right to network tv time is a bad idea.

Hmmm... last I checked, the Guard was supposed to defend the homeland. They bring these guys out for national emergencies- like floods and hurricanes.

And rear-echelon use in combat areas.

National Guard and Reservists compose 40% of the forces over in Iraq. They are being used to do things that regular army is supposed to do- yet get less equipment to do it.
I'm sorry, this is just a case of FUBAR, plain and simple.

Yes, it's screwed up and needs to be addressed. Unfortunately most of the opposition is more interested in moaning about how FUBAR'd it is and pointing fingers than in actually figuring out how to fix the situation.

So how do you suggest we reduce the use of Guard troops or upgrade their equipment for the job? Several ideas have been thrown out here adn elsewhere, it's completely within our abilities to remedy.

clark · 2004-12-09 12:38:37

So how do you suggest we reduce the use of Guard troops or upgrade their equipment for the job? Several ideas have been thrown out here adn elsewhere, it's completely within our abilities to remedy.

Increase the size of the US military. Make serious consessions to European allies to induce them to commit troops. Admit mistakes and rectify them.

All suggetions that will not be used by Bush. Bill and others hammered this point on and on prior to the election, mistakes cannot be fixed unless they are admitted to.

It didn't have to be publicaly, but I for one see no evidence of any change in how thie war is being led. It's more of the same, and denotes a lack of awareness of the effects of decisions made.

All the solutions we can come come up with may salve our own souls, but it dosen't do a bit of good. It's hopeless, so more good people will die needlesly because some leaders are to busy being politicans instead of being responsible leaders.

BWhite · 2004-12-09 12:40:59

From the article Bill linked:
"It is time for the FCC to re-examine whether some sort of public right of access is required under the Communications Act and the First Amendment."

Not a bad idea in theory. But, who swings the auction gavel?

BWhite · 2004-12-09 12:46:48

So how do you suggest we reduce the use of Guard troops or upgrade their equipment for the job? Several ideas have been thrown out here adn elsewhere, it's completely within our abilities to remedy.
Increase the size of the US military. Make serious consessions to European allies to induce them to commit troops. Admit mistakes and rectify them.
All suggetions that will not be used by Bush. Bill and others hammered this point on and on prior to the election, mistakes cannot be fixed unless they are admitted to.
It didn't have to be publicaly, but I for one see no evidence of any change in how thie war is being led. It's more of the same, and denotes a lack of awareness of the effects of decisions made.
All the solutions we can come come up with may salve our own souls, but it dosen't do a bit of good. It's hopeless, so more good people will die needlesly because some leaders are to busy being politicans instead of being responsible leaders.

Didn't John Kerry advocate two new divisions of regular infantry?

Ever play the board game Axis & Allies? We need more infantry if we are to continue with the Bush plan for fighting terrorism.

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-09 12:56:52

Increase the size of the US military.

Great. How? Either we somehow make people want to enlist or we start a draft. If the latter is the answer, it's no better than overusing Guard forces (who at least volunteered for something)

Make serious consessions to European allies to induce them to commit troops.

Which they aren't going to do, they've been very clear on this.

All the solutions we can come come up with may salve our own souls, but it dosen't do a bit of good. It's hopeless, so more good people will die needlesly because some leaders are to busy being politicans instead of being responsible leaders.

So are you saying that it's hopeless because it's an impossible task, or because any improvement would be at least partially credited to Bush?

The latter is petty and unworthy of further discussion, the former is merely self-despairing defeatism coupled with a lack of resolve and imagination.

We can operate alone and win this with minimal loss of life, we can induce our Coalition partners to stay by making faster progress, and just maybe we can get the French and Germans to invest in some venture so heavily they'll have to send troops, but that will take years.

But "bring in our allies" is the buzzphrase, so it doesn't really need to be thought out, apparently.

Not a bad idea in theory. But, who swings the auction gavel?

That's already been settled, the public owns the airwaves, the government is the steward, therefore for all practical purposes the government owns the airwaves and therefore the fed holds the gavel.

Not my idea, this has been planned for years, ever since HDTV appeared on the horizon they've been planning to auction the old wavelengths off. Incidentally it was one of many sources of phantom funds in the much-hyped "surplus".

Didn't John Kerry advocate two new divisions of regular infantry?

Great, how? A wish list is not a plan, how do you get two divisions of new recruits?

There are ways, but Kerry never once addressed them leading me to believe he was just playing politics.

BWhite · 2004-12-09 13:12:37

Increase the size of the US military.
Great. How? Either we somehow make people want to enlist or we start a draft. If the latter is the answer, it's no better than overusing Guard forces (who at least volunteered for something)

This takes my breath away. Are you saying that public support for the foreign policy of our President is so very shallow that he cannot go on national TV and say:

My fellow Americans, we need 50,000 more regular soldiers, who will be regular Army and Marines, not Guard. I call upon the young people of America to step forward and volunteer. To the National Guard, I know you are over-extended. We miscalculated. But 50,000 new regular soldiers are coming on-line as fast as possible. Hang in there. And qualified Guardsmen who seek transfer to the regular Army will get signing bonuses and promotions.

If this call will not be answered by the American people, why did we write a check without enough money in the bank to cash it?

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-09 13:25:05

This takes my breath away. Are you saying that public support for the foreign policy of our President is so very shallow that he cannot go on national TV and say:
My fellow Americans, we need 50,000 more regular soldiers . . .

It may well be that simple, especially if packaged properly. What I find hard to believe is that the majority of people who constantly claim that we need more troops actually think it will be this easy.

The fact of the matter is they don't. Much of the "more troops, we're in a quagmire" crowd don't want us to find a solution.

Everyone has their motives and many hide them. For some people a call from the President for new recruits, coupled with suitably patriotic rhetoric will bring them in. Others will require more substantial motivation. Still others can't be moved to serve regardless.

Then we have to pay for it, which isn't that hard really but we'll have a chorus of whining for every dollar transferred from somewhere else.

But hey, I'm all for Bush going on tv to ask for Americas young people to serve. Better still, let's step up the effort first to get a big victory or two beforehand. Couple that with kicking up the pay and benefits slightly and a kickass recruitment campaign and we may well get those two divisions.

But they aren't going to come out of the air and many of those calling for those divisions only do so because they don't believe it will happen, it's a ready-made excuse for failure that can then be blamed on Bush, or the Republican Party if need be (for the war is branded as "theirs") by people who opposed it from the start regardless.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1102620706

Palomar · 2004-12-09 13:53:41

*I have a question about the draft.

My nephew is 22 years old, and mildly mentally retarded (IQ of about 75). He also has attention deficit disorder and a very short attention span, among other things.

What are the chances he'd be taken, if they start drafting people? Hopefully not much. He'd be completely lost and confused, vulnerable to all sorts of abuse and etc. I'll defer comments on how that would affect me personally (not good).

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-09 14:03:30

What are the chances he'd be taken, if they start drafting people? Hopefully not much.

Based on current regulations, he wouldn't be accepted. An act of Congress during WWII banned those with IQs under 80 from enlistment/draft on the grounds that they are too difficult to train.

BWhite · 2004-12-09 14:24:27

Sunni / Shiite maps courtesy of Juan Cole:

2000:

http://www.juancole.com/graphics/middle … eeast1.jpg

2008:

http://www.juancole.com/graphics/middle … eeast2.jpg

http://www.juancole.com/]Juan Cole's column - -this guy is really smart and stidies hard. University of Michigan professor.

The big long term winner of our adventure in Iraq? Iran.

Edited By BWhite on 1102624365

BWhite · 2004-12-09 16:12:04

More good questions asked of Rumsfeld:

Q: Yes, sir. I was wanting to know why I cannot enlist as a single parent in the regular Army, but I can enlist in the National Guard and be deployed?
...
Q: Specialist Skarwin (Sp?) HHD 42nd Engineer Brigade. Mr. Secretary [Cheers] my question is with the current mission of the National Guard and Reserves being the same as our active duty counterparts, when are more of our benefits going to line up to the same as theirs, for example, retirement? [Cheers] [Applause]
(Apparently Rummy's answer was: "I can't imagine anyone your age worrying about retirement. Good grief.")
...
Q: Good morning, sir. Staff Sergeant Latazinsky (sp) 1st COSCOM (sp), Fort Bragg, [Cheers] North Carolina. Yes, sir. My husband and myself, we both joined a volunteer Army. Currently, I'm serving under the Stop Loss Program. I would like to know how much longer do you foresee the military using this program?

http://tnr.com/blog/iraqd?pid=2440]Courtesy of Spencer Ackerman

Again, I predict no more Q&A sessions.

= = =

Edit to add:

We got played, stung, conned, bambozzled:

I just read this and I agree:

If I were the Iranian leadership in 2001, there would be 3 things on my wishlist:
Regime change in Afganistan.
Regime change in Iraq.
diminish all political capital the US has with regards to invading a country (Iran) on claims of WMD programs.
Yes, Challabi would leave the pentagon one day and would be in Tehran (at his villa) talking to Iranian agents the next (excluding time zone effects).

The Taliban are (were?) largely Sunni. Iran is Shia.

We (the US) have been whacking nut-job Sunnis left and right. So who wins at that? The Shia. Dang those guys are good at manipulating the US of A.

Iran can now build nukes and we are helpless to stop it!.

Whoa!

Who are the http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html]Taliban?

Edited By BWhite on 1102640815

Palomar · 2004-12-14 12:08:44

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … ebate]ACLU in the headlines again

HARRISBURG, Pa. - The state American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) plans to file a federal lawsuit Tuesday against a Pennsylvania school district that is requiring students to learn about alternatives to the theory of evolution.

*So the ACLU doesn't believe in nor support people making up their own minds and having the means available for doing just that?

The ACLU has said intelligent design is a more secular form of creationism, a Biblical-based view that credits the origin of species to God, and may violate the constitutional separation of church and state.

*Not necessarily. Some 18th-century Deists didn't consider the Bible as infalliable nor as the "inspired word of God" -- in fact, some of them didn't regard the Bible positively at all, or at least not much. Voltaire believed in God but he didn't base his belief on the Bible; on the contrary, he often ridiculed what he believed were inaccuracies and etc. in the Bible.

Anyone here affiliated with the ACLU, or have a comment about that organization "in general" or in response to the article? Sometimes the ACLU is spot-on...at other times I think they're treading in "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" territory. :-\

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-14 12:20:12

The ACLU was once described to me this way: "At some point in your life you'll love this organization, and you'll hate them too." That seems to sum it up.

Now, I know a few people who have been involved to varying degrees with the ACLU, and they seem to come in two basic types. Those that actually care about civil liberties, the people that fight for free speech even when it means supporting a neo-Nazi march, a Communist protest or a Klan rally. This faction of the ACLU is good, I like having them around. Free speech for everyone, even the kooks.

But then we have the other faction, the Leftist fanatics. Free speech for everyone who agrees with us. These are the type that argue we can't discuss the Declaration of Independence in a public school because it mentions a Creator. In a word, loons.

So whenever the ACLU gets involved with anything, I'm usually cautiously hopeful, supportive of principle but suspicious of motive.

BWhite · 2004-12-14 13:11:58

Heh! Cindy, Carl Sagan would be horrified by the teaching of intelligent design as being co-equal with evolution.

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-14 14:07:13

Heh! Cindy, Carl Sagan would be horrified by the teaching of intelligent design as being co-equal with evolution.

Indeed. Which brings up something worth considering. We can oppose teaching "intelligent design" or creationsim on essentially two grounds, either out of hostility toward the religion it is attached to, or simply because it's a silly idea with no evidence to support it, an empty assertion with only a web of rationalizations to hold it up.

If the first is the case, it's either snobbery or bigotry. If the latter, the position is far more defensible, but then it should logically be expanded. We teach all sorts of silly things that either are not supported by evidence or are outright contradicted by evidence. We know that the world around us is, but neither religion nor science can adequately explain it. The former has complete answers with no evidence, the latter has evidence with few answers. Both entail differing degrees of faith.

But even the most dubious science is founded in some shred of evidence or hypothesis that can be verified at least partially. But that's not all we teach, our schools teach a particular version of history, a biased perspective of how we came to be who we are. An example, "diversity made this country great". It was a common refrain when I was in school, I hear it's even more widespread now. It's utter nonsense with no supporting evidence, but to question it is almost heresy.

Yet the same people who push that article of faith actively seek to drum out the equally unsubstantiated article of faith that God created us. To oppose teaching either as objective truths (as opposed to mere ideas) is entirely rational, anything less is hypocrisy at best.

Palomar · 2004-12-14 14:25:32

Bill: Heh! Cindy, Carl Sagan would be horrified by the teaching of intelligent design as being co-equal with evolution.

*Believe it or not (no pun intended...), I'm actually not all that familiar with Sagan's opinions and viewpoints. What I did read of him (and material he wrote -- not much) is years ago now and is fading from memory.

Cobra: We know that the world around us is, but neither religion nor science can adequately explain it. The former has complete answers with no evidence, the latter has evidence with few answers.

*Very succinctly put.

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2004-12-15 08:13:43

Cindy:-

Not necessarily. Some 18th-century Deists didn't consider the Bible as infalliable nor as the "inspired word of God" -- in fact, some of them didn't regard the Bible positively at all, or at least not much. Voltaire believed in God but he didn't base his belief on the Bible; on the contrary, he often ridiculed what he believed were inaccuracies and etc. in the Bible.

I agree we mustn't confuse a belief in God with the book we all know as the Bible; the two things are not necessarily the same.
To me, the god of the Old Testament was a very small-minded 'jealous god', fond of spectacular tricks and demanding absolute obedience, lest he 'smite thee with his mighty sword'. The god of the New Testament is no better, obsessed as he is with a 'sin' alleged to have been committed some 240 generations ago.
The sin is genetically inherited, apparently, and can only be expunged by metaphorically (literally if you're Catholic) drinking the blood and eating the flesh of god's son. We should all have been destroyed for our wickedness by the same vengeful deity who terrorised the Israelites but, through his limitless mercy, we're offered a choice: Accept Jesus as our saviour from this vengeance, or burn in hell for eternity. Some mercy; some choice!

The Bible, the Torah, and the Koran, for all their deep significance to their adherents, are all just developments of primitive, and usually gory, Middle Eastern creation myths and morality tales. They have no place in science because science has long since outgrown them.
The cutting edges of cosmology and quantum mechanics, on the other hand, allow speculation as to intelligent design; it's not popular in mainstream science for obvious reasons but such speculation can be entertained, at least for now. It's a case of the god of the gaps being pushed back to the moment of the Big Bang or squeezed down to the infinitesimal scale of the sub-atomic realm but, at least in these areas, it is still possible to speak of God. If history is any guide, God will be hounded into ever more distant and confined regions of the universe as our knowledge grows.
But, what if the day should ever dawn when science grinds to a halt at a barrier it can't break through? What if the more we learn of how things work, the more we realise the complexity cannot be explained except by intelligent design? I don't mean it can't be explained because we haven't done the experiments yet, I mean it has become apparent after all the experiments are done that something or someone is pulling the strings and always has been - a being made of pure information, if you like. "In the beginning was the Word".

I don't say this situation is likely to come to pass, it may not even be possible given the nature of science, but I'm just suggesting that, for now, 'intelligent design', as a concept, still has a place in science as a continually falsifiable hypothesis.

Nevertheless, I believe Biblical creationism is an insidious doctrine, as are all religious fundamentalisms, and I abhor the idea of it being given equal footing with evolution theory in schools.
If creationists have seized on the term 'intelligent design' because it may appear in cutting-edge scientific speculation, thus giving their cult an air of respectability and allowing it to propagate more easily, then we need to be more vigilant now than ever.
Every time the words 'intelligent design' are mentioned as a hypothesis, and I don't see why they should enter into highschool science very much anyway (we had plenty to study in my school days, without getting into that much rarified philosophy! ), then they must be couched in terminology plainly identifying them as just one more hypothetical argument and no more than that.

Just a few of my opinions on the subject .. 'and no more than that'!

Palomar · 2004-12-15 15:04:01

If creationists have seized on the term 'intelligent design' because it may appear in cutting-edge scientific speculation, thus giving their cult an air of respectability and allowing it to propagate more easily, then we need to be more vigilant now than ever.
Every time the words 'intelligent design' are mentioned as a hypothesis, and I don't see why they should enter into highschool science very much anyway (we had plenty to study in my school days, without getting into that much rarified philosophy! ), then they must be couched in terminology plainly identifying them as just one more hypothetical argument and no more than that.
Just a few of my opinions on the subject .. 'and no more than that'!

*Hi Shaun. Yes, that's the crux of the issue right there: If fundamentalist religionists will use that phrase while seeking to push their agenda (and if my past experience with them growing up is any indication -- they will). But they only want their religious ideas put forth as creationist alternatives: Not the one Native American tribe's belief humans emerged somehow from holes in the ground, or the belief indigenous to a group of South Americans that we tumbled out of clouds, etc. So what does the public school system do? Present every alternative, every myth, every belief? Not feasible.

But then religionists could come back with "Well, isn't the theory of evolution predicated on faith?" My father's (a staunch creationist) reply was: "It takes more faith to believe we came from nothing and later evolved from monkeys than it does to have faith in a God who created everything." :-\ His right to his opinion, of course.

But the theory of evolution IS based on the scientific method and techniques.

And I do agree especially with your comment about their seeking an "air of respectability." That's true IMO as well, again: We often see various religious practices or spiritual beliefs with the word "science" tagged on (the credibility-seeking factor)...whereas we DON'T see science articles referring to the MERs' study of rocks as "spiritual" nor the most recent info about the Van Allen belts couched in religious terms.

--Cindy

P.S.: And if anyone is wondering about my avatars or the Linus/Charlie Brown link: Most imagery and symbols used this time of year are pagan in origin -- for the Winter Solstice.

Rxke · 2004-12-16 04:12:28

Political potpourri...

Yesterday, we Belgians commemorated the 60th anniversary of Hitllers Ardennes-offensive, (Or Battle of the Bulge,) his last-ditch attemt to (re-)conquer the world by unexpectedly starting a massive Panzer, infantery and artillerry attack from the Ardennes, A hilly, wooded area, in the East of Belgium. His plan was to break through to Brussels and Antwerp (important harbour...) which had already been liberated by the Allies.
Long story short: total defeat, but immense human suffering: coldest winters in years, minus 20 deg C, terrible terrain, city-to-city fights, huge losses on both sides, desperate German troops going through the red: executions of civillians and POW's... Horrible stuff.

Well... Colin Powel did an announcement in which he thanked the allied for their sacrifices, but went on to also laud the Belgian civillian resistance for their efforts. It sounded like a real effort to mend some 'issues' between today's America and 'Old Europe'...

Ok, Powel is fin-de-carriere, but it looked like he wanted to mend some ties? I sure appreciated the gesture.

Palomar · 2004-12-16 10:45:53

Well... Colin Powel did an announcement in which he thanked the allied for their sacrifices, but went on to also laud the Belgian civillian resistance for their efforts. It sounded like a real effort to mend some 'issues' between today's America and 'Old Europe'...
Ok, Powel is fin-de-carriere, but it looked like he wanted to mend some ties? I sure appreciated the gesture.

*Powell...hmmmm. Any thoughts as to the benefit or detriment of his -not- going to be part of "Round 2"?

Just saw this at Yahoo! headlines:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … key]Little Mermaid in a burka? (Turkey in the European Union?)

A rather dramatic "statement." I'm curious to see if the EU will allow Turkey to join. And will keep my opinion to myself on that count, considering I'm not European (except by ancestry).

--Cindy

Rxke · 2004-12-17 07:11:17

Typical black and white/ kneejerk reaction...

Turks don't wear burka's.

And about Turkey going European... I thought everybody wanted 'Arab' countries going more Western? Now that we have one, it's not ok?

Palomar · 2004-12-17 07:36:09

And about Turkey going European... I thought everybody wanted 'Arab' countries going more Western? Now that we have one, it's not ok?

*I didn't say I was opposed to it.

Some of my reluctance to opine stems from not being overly familiar with Turkey, the EU and etc.

Whichever decision the EU makes will of course have an impact...and far be it from me to foresee probable consequences either way.

--Cindy

Rxke · 2004-12-17 08:59:49

I didn't say I was positive for it
It's an 'interesting' problem... Turks see themselves more European than Arab, by far, but we Europeans, well...

Weird thing is the immigrants are turning more fundamental than the people that still live in Turkey, guess it's a case of trying to find one's roots?

Q: Is the EU primarily economic or is it a cultural thing? What does the EU want to become in the long term. I guess the 'leaders' might have different visions than the actual inhabitants of current EU countries etc etc blahblahblah

Palomar · 2004-12-17 09:10:52

*Delete further comments about EU, Turkey etc.

Why am I concerning myself about this anyway? Got enough problems on this side of the pond.

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-12-09 12:19:15

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#27 2004-12-09 12:31:42

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#28 2004-12-09 12:38:37

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#29 2004-12-09 12:40:59

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#30 2004-12-09 12:46:48

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#31 2004-12-09 12:56:52

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#32 2004-12-09 13:12:37

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#33 2004-12-09 13:25:05

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#34 2004-12-09 13:53:41

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#35 2004-12-09 14:03:30

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#36 2004-12-09 14:24:27

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#37 2004-12-09 16:12:04

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#38 2004-12-14 12:08:44

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#39 2004-12-14 12:20:12

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#40 2004-12-14 13:11:58

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#41 2004-12-14 14:07:13

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#42 2004-12-14 14:25:32

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#43 2004-12-15 08:13:43

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#44 2004-12-15 15:04:01

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#45 2004-12-16 04:12:28

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#46 2004-12-16 10:45:53

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#47 2004-12-17 07:11:17

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#48 2004-12-17 07:36:09

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#49 2004-12-17 08:59:49

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#50 2004-12-17 09:10:52

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

Board footer