.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;} <$BlogRSDURL$>

Thursday, December 08, 2005


So I got off the plane and rushed to get to CBGB to see Strikes Again, which I didn't make. But I saw Dave. I had no idea what blogging had gone on behind my traveling back. He gave me what for. On the blog, not at the show. We even spoke about how great it is we can disagree here, on the blogsphere, and still hang out, as Tony will attest - despite that evening in the pavilion just before the election. But I didn't know. I didn't know how far up Calvary he was gonna take me.

I will now respond. After that I'm going to read Tony's e-mail, respond to that, and then check the gazillion posts that have popped up today.....Damn!

Dean's proposal is not disengagement. It's redeployment. I think it's a good step. I never said cut and run, I never said throw in the towel. I'd hate to live somwhere where any divergence from the party line is immediately labelled defeatist or dangerous. That's smells like McCarthyism. That smells like intollerance. Hate driven by fear.

Certainly victory can be achieved, but what does it really mean?

I think it means a hell of a long time. I'm asking if we really want that.

The American Revolution wasn't a revolution because it was a rebellion. If the Americans had gone on to cross the ocean, kill King Goerge III, take over Parliment, and found a new government; then it would have been a revolution. This is semantics. I only brought it up because it's a sort of knee jerk history geek type thing that I always say when refering to the American Revolution. It's off-topic and unsupportive of my argument

I spoke of Rome's involvement in the Middle East to show mostly that the region is notoriously unstable, which was actually off-topic and non-supportive of my argument. I should have, as Dave suggests, cited their protracted wars against insurgencies in the West, like Spain or Germany, to show not only how long you need to hang out somewhere to change the way people think, a seriously long time, and to point out (this is a really long sentence) that such Roman conquests and states of dominion began for reasons of security for the Republic, not for land grabs, which they indeed became.

I spoke of ideology, and was not clear. I tend to try and over succinct myself. I'm often in a hurry, which helps my being wrong a lot.

To the point about the Nazi thing, in that case you had a functioning State who's policies were founded upon the ideology of fascism. You can defeat a Nation. You can defeat a man. There's no single Hitler in Iraq. The honorable men and women of the America Armed Forces took care of that.

The problem that we face isn't about a man, it's about men.

Yes, Dave is right again, Nazis are still around, people driven by fear to the practice of hate, and there well may always will be an Al Queda (insert Fear/Hate bit). Dave is also right about the mess we left in South East Asia in 75.

Haven't had much issue with them lately.

People sort themselves out.

You have to want to change.

I know about that.

I suppose I digressed a bit, again. I guess I have a wide focus. Dave is very good with the specific. I never had much use for specific, which is why I'm not a very good guitar player. I was a good history student, and a better actor.

Neither made me any money. I have learned how to make money though. Bust your ass.

I think that's universal, and seriously off-topic, and non-supportive of my argument.

What argument?

Well said.

This country seems to be heading backward. I, too, fear the idea that disagreeing with those in charge is labeled dangerous or irresponsible.

There's a word for where this kind of thing can head.

It's "facism."

And if you think I'm overreacting, don't forget that, in our fine country, the government can now hold you for as long as they like without charging you with anything.


The people elected Dean, and Dean can say whatever the hell he wants. If this means a "PR" victory for those formerly known as "insurgents," who cares? It's not making life for the average soldier more dangerous. The average soldier is in constant danger already. People are being killed.

Funny how so many of the Hawks that post and respond to your posts never served in the military.
I'm sorry, but to what post did "the people" elect Dean?

He's the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Did you get to vote in that election?

Chris, the logical corollary to your "Chickenhawk" argument is that only people with military experience can comment on or control the military. I assume that civilian control of the military is as important to you as it is to me.
I'm just saying that it's much easier to be pro war when your ass isn't on the line and has no danger of being on the line.

Howard Dean was elected governor of Vermont, as you know. He no longer holds that post, as you also know. But he was elected by the people. My statement was poorly worded. I should have said "this guy was elected to the Vermont House of Representatives, elected VT Lt. Governor, and eventually Governor of Vermont, so he can say whatever the hell he wants."
Also, Dean WAS elected to the position of DNC chair, although obviously not by "the people" as such.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?