3 posts tagged “iraq”

The New York Times Takes a Leak There's a memo that Rummy wrote to the Prez, available now online. The New York Times reported it, thus cementing its role as the conservatives' bogeyman of record.

The memo basically says this: we have to rejigger our operation in Iraq, because it's not working.

In fact, a lot of what Rummy says in the memo is highly reminiscent of what the Dems have been demanding.

I already know what the conservatives are going to say about this come Monday morning.

1) The NYTimes is a bastion of liberals and democrats.
2) Liberals hate America.
3) America hates liberals.
4) The NYTimes is committing treason for publishing a story about a classified memo.

The conservative echo chamber is wrong. Duh.

My theory: the memo was purposefully leaked by the Bush administration.

Why I'm right:

1) Rummy saves face, at the lowest point of any public or historical popularity he ever had. He is shown to be agreeing with the people who hated him most, and that he can modify his opinions and plans based upon evidence (however late it might be)

2) The Bush administration can change its policy in Iraq without the public perception that they gave in to their political enemies (or, dare I say it, flip-flopped).

See! I'm smart!

Why am I posting so much about politics? I don't talk about it very much - that could be because my friends pretty much agree with me on all but the most insane Libertarian ideas that I've been considering. What can I say, but that I enjoy taunting Jim L. with opinions that even Republicans think are crazy.

My political opinions can be summed up thusly: I am in favor of as much individual freedom as possible. Laws tend to dilute freedom. Any law that outright punishes a person for doing something that inherently harms nobody else is a bad law.

Anyway, this means I don't affiliate myself with any particular party, though the Libertarians come closest. They have some strange ideas about isolationism that I just don't think are realistic.

Anyway again, I've often heard Democrats and liberal folks lament that Republicans, if given the chance, will institute a draft.

This is just not the case. It's Democrats who will reinstate conscription.

Rep. Rangel has tried it numerous times in the last few years, and now with Democratic control of Congress, he's going to try it again.

Why's he doing it? Because he thinks it will make politicians avoid going to war.

War is not always bad. It is sometimes necessary.

Keep in mind, I don't think the current Iraq war constitutes a just war, but it's the one we're stuck with.

Do you think that maybe you're too old to be drafted? Think again. Rangel's most recent legislation attempt (which was voted down) included people up to the age of 42.

Do you think that your socioeconomic status or student status might keep you out, too? Not so. The whole point of this draft effort is to make the sons and daughters of rich people and politicians serve in the military, and thus make these rich politicians think again before sending troops overseas.

I, for one, hope they don't do it.

I don't want to go to war today.

I'm against gay marriage.

Let me be specific. I'm against the government having any role whatsoever in the definition of marriage. The government should not acknowledge marriage, whether it be between opposite sexes or same sexes.

Call it a Domestic Partnership. All of the laws and benefits that the current definition of marriage entails should be rolled into the domestic partnership law. I mean all of them, from custody rights to inheritances. Eliminate any kind of reference to the sexes of the participants. Eliminate any need for a ceremony, blood test, etc. Make it a contract that you sign, or something. You know, lawyery stuff.

Then, marriage can be the domain of the religions. If the Catholic church doesn't want to recognize same-sex marriages, they don't have to.

Thus, no gay marriage, but same sex couples can enjoy all of the benefits of any other opposite sex couple.

After all, it's purely a semantic argument - Conservative Christians claim that they don't mind if homosexual couples have the same benefits as opposite sex couples, they just don't want it to be called marriage. They say marriage is a religious term, which it sort of is.

But that's the great thing about the rules within groups. A Catholic man can't say he's married to another Catholic man. Their rules don't allow it. But a non-catholic man can say he's married to another non-catholic man because he's not in the group that disallows it.

To paraphrase Penn Jillette: only a Phi Beta Kappa recipient can wear the Phi Beta Kappa key. That is exactly why I, a non-Phi Beta Kappa, can wear a Phi Beta Kappa key - because I'm not in the group, I don't have to follow its rules.

---

Does anybody else find it intensely humorous that the brand name of the contaminated spinach shipments is Natural Selection?

---

I love World War 2. I can't claim the same level of knowledge that somebody like Dan has, but that doesn't lessen my interest in it.

I feel a bit weird saying that I like a war. It seems that we shouldn't enjoy wars, because they're so awful. Real people die and suffer and kill in them, people I know (in some cases). They're awful, nasty things that should never happen.

But sometimes they do happen, and for the right reasons.

See, I can't say I'm thrilled about the current situation in Iraq, but I'm sure glad that there's one less dictator in the world. I'm not happy that Americans are dying in a fight against a wide variety and substantive sample of the Middle East's ethnic, religious and political groups, but I'm glad we're taking more of them with us.

Is that wrong, for me to find pleasure in the elimination of people who are trying to kill our soldiers? I don't think it is. Call me an idealist, but I don't think we're the bad guys.

I have friends and family in the military. These are people who are very dear to me. They all, universally, are happy that they have the opportunity to serve the United States. I won't fault them for that. What kind of citizen would that make me?

I will always respect my friend Doug's opinion of warfare and the politics thereof. See, he's an active, participating member in the armed forces, and grew up surrounded by the apparatus of the US Air Force. He's studied more of it than I ever will (and I do a lot of reading). His astute observations in a recent blog of mine constitute my personal opinion of the Iraq war, because he said so. Not only do his observations make sense to me, but I consider him kind of an expert on the subject. Just as I would go to my father, a lawyer, for legal advice, I go to Doug for advice on modern warfare opinions.

Anyway, World War 2. We fought a handful of bad guys in that one. I've been playing a lot of games themed to that era, from Company of Heroes to Medal of Honor. I'm not really very good at any of them, but I'm not bad, either.

When I was a kid, we went to an air show that had a lot of army surplus junk for sale. We got two kinds of grenades, and some bullets, and stuff like that. The grenades obviously didn't have any explosive stuff in them - they were drilled from the bottom and the fuses were removed. The bullets were similarly emptied. But they still had that distinctive smell of gunpowder, and the cold, utilitarian feel of tools.

They weren't toys, and they didn't seem like toys. I don't know if we ever played with them as such. I just remember holding the pineapple in my hand, wondering what it would have been like to throw that at somebody in order to kill them.

Anyway, war sucks, but if I had to choose one, I'd choose the second world one.

---

If every seat is considered First Class, doesn't that mean that nobody is in First Class?