« Can You Spare A Dime For Joe And Valerie Wilson's Bogus Suit? | Main | Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ »

"Don't rock the boat"

One of the sillier accusations against President Bush's policies and actions regarding the Middle East has been that they have been "destabilizing" matters.

To which I respond with a hearty "well, duh."

"Stability" is the watchword of many people. They don't want matters upset. They think the situation may be bad, but it could be worse, and they think that the status quo is at least tolerable.

I reject that argument.

Let's look at what is considered the "stable" situation these people want to preserve:

The entire Muslim/Arab world ruled by dictators of various sorts -- theocrats, autocrats, and out-and-out tyrants.

A steady, constant level of terrorist attacks and slaughter of civilians in Israel and around the world.

The world's oil supply (the lifeblood of modern civilization) vulnerable to threats and disruptions.

Large portions of the revenues from said oil supply going to fund these terrorist attacks, while an even larger portion props up said dictators.

Yeah, President Bush has certainly destabilized that situation. I'd like to think (for the sake of my nation and the world) that he has a grand scheme going on, a vision of how he wants it to be coupled with a workable plan to reach it, but even if he simply decided to toss the whole thing into a blender and hit puree', the odds are halfway decent that the end product will be better.

Right now, we're still in the blender, but let's look at how things stand now vs. how they were in 2000:

1) Afghanistan is no longer ruled by brutal, 9th-century theocrats.

2) Al Qaeda is on the run, its leadership beyond decimated.

3) Saddam Hussein is no longer providing material support for terrorism around the world.

4) Jewish settlers (alias "hostages") are no longer in the Gaza Strip.

5) Hamas and Hezbollah are no longer carrying out low-level attacks and building their forces for a major battle with Israel, but instead finding themselves fighting for their very survival, with very few avenues for retreat.

6) Libya has renounced and surrendered its WMD program.

7) Iran, used to comfortably denouncing and threatening America from afar, finds itself quietly surrounded by the US military -- major ground forces east and west, and a sizable naval presence to the south.

8) Syria finds its puppet in Lebanon cutting its strings on one side, while watching America utterly destroy their former ally Iraq to the other -- and working on rebuilding Iraq into a nation that will be our friend, not theirs.

I hadn't realized just how many people -- and what kind of people -- had a great deal invested in preserving the status quo until I saw this story, where Saudi Arabia did the unthinkable -- they passed on an opportunity to condemn and blame Israel.

Why would they do this? The reasonable answer is that the current situation does not suit their interests. And the Saudi's interests are in preserving the status quo. They like having a low level of terrorism against Israel. Israel's continued existence is a good thing for the Saudis; it gives their crazies something to rally against, to denounce, to fight against. If they didn't have this external factor, those same nutcases might decide to do away with the "oil ticks" who run the nation as a family business (hell, they even named their nation after their House name) and have a little revolution.

And Saudi Arabia is not unique; it just serves as a convenient example in this case.

It reminds me of the Cold War. For decades, we were all hostages to MAD, the obscene notion of a "balance of terror," and listened to so many say that while the ongoing situation with the Soviet Union was terrifying, it was a known danger, while lord knows what perils might threaten us if they were to fall. That held true for years, until Ronald Reagan decided that if one is in a war (even a cold one), one might as well try to win it -- and ended up liberating all Europe from Communist tyranny.

Thomas Jefferson once famously said ""a little rebellion now and then is a good thing." He was speaking in relation to America, but that same notion holds true for the Middle East. The "stability" that so many held as sacrosanct was sustainable, but ultimately inhumane and unconscionable. It needed destabilizing, and needs even more.

I don't know if what emerges from these shakeups will be better than the prior situation. But I know it'll be hard-pressed to be worse. And personally speaking, I have always found it worse to regret the things I did not do than the things I did. I would rather be damned for trying and failing, than condemned for standing by silently.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Don't rock the boat":

» Murdoc Online linked with Murdoc's Israel theories

» A Blog For All linked with Running With the Dogs of War

» Say Anything linked with An Argument For Destabilization

Comments (39)

Jay:Best article o... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

Jay:

Best article on the subject that I have ever read. Seems to sum things up, with no need for futher discussion.

I wish that there was a Reagan or Bush around during VietNam. It's quite posible that we might have been able to put another one in the win column. It never seems to fail, that the leaders who are concerned with their charges welfair have great legacies, and those that are concerned with their legacies have terrible ones.

Jay:Talking to one... (Below threshold)
sentinel:

Jay:

Talking to one of my closet pundit pals we started discussing the "2-front" situation Israel has found itself in.

He mentioned what about Iran and Syria?

I said "Huh?"

He said, "What if this is a huge Rovian conspiracy to make Syria and Iran focus on something else other than destabilizing Iraq?"

I said "Good point"

I and many others, who have... (Below threshold)
pagar:

I and many others, who have served in the military, believe that Vietnam would have been in the US military win column; had it not been for John F Kerry and his supporters assuring America's enemies that they were here to help them.
Unfortunatly, we did not solve that problem then, and today we have the same problem. Americans at home doing their best to defeat the American military.

Good post, Jay.The... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Good post, Jay.

The 'status quo' was/is a slow death sentence for us and the West.

We're in a race against time. It's only a matter of time until some Islamic extremist gets his hands on/makes his own nuke or some scientist genetically modifies some ebola-smallpox-common cold virus combo that we won't know how to cure.
These religious nutjobs will not hesitate to float the nuke into the Port of Los Angeles in a cargo container, or into Boston, or London or Paris or wherever. They will have no problem injecting volunteer 'martyrs' with the new virus combo and then send them around the world to spread the disease.

The people of the mideast have nothing to live for and their 7th century 'education' consists of the teachings of radical Islamsists brainwashing them to hate the West and to kill non-muslims whenever they can.

Our only hope is to transform their nations from brutal religious dictatorships into some sort of modern democratic entity where their people have choices and education.

We ignore their plight at our own peril.

Moonbat Dictionary--... (Below threshold)
George:

Moonbat Dictionary
------------------
mass graves
noun
a place for dissenters who threaten stability.

Related to the "stability" ... (Below threshold)
Wanderlust:

Related to the "stability" argument: how so many people pretend that the systematic destruction of al-Queda's C3 (command, control, communications) structure isn't "winning" because, as they say (paraphrased) "someone else will fill the position, and it'll be the same as before".

Obviously, none of these people have ever been involved in project management, much less an organization of any type.

Every "top person" in al-Queda who gets sent to the virgins takes with him whatever knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) that made him an asset to the organization. Those KSAs are often irreplaceable. When the "NEXT" person comes along to fill the role, that person's KSAs are often not nearly as good as the one who just got smoked.

If Israel does go after HAMAS and Hizbollah's collective C3 structures, perhaps someone else will pop up to fill the political/terrorist vacuum. Whatever group that may be, though, it's a fair bet that they won't be anywhere near the threat that HAMAS or Hizbollah present to Israel at the moment.

At least the terrorist wanks understand the principle. Have you ever seen one of them go out in public without bodyguards or human shields surrounding them?

The 'status quo' was/is ... (Below threshold)

The 'status quo' was/is a slow death sentence for us and the West.

Can be, but probably won't be. Thought the same during the middle ages as well, after the outright expansion of the Ottoman Empire settled into the nice, quiet, status quo of war of attrition. The Ottomans got fat and lazy, just like the Byzantines they replaced. Only thing was, it took 600 years for it to happen.

We all tend to look at these problems as if they were MASSIVE and IMMEDIATE, and they sometimes are, but not often.

Keeping pan-islamist expansion at bay is probably good enough. Probably. Nothing is certain.


We ignore their plight at our own peril.

It's our peril if we become fat and lazy. If we make excuses for them. "It's understandable that they knocked down our buildings, because we did 'x' to them..." That's fat and lazy. That's Ward Churchill, and it's 75% of the college sophomores who've had a class of PoliSci.

Every once in a while we need to force pan-islamists to be petulant little brats in their own sandbox, and punctuate it with bombs if we have to. But it doesn't need to culminate in a Good versus Evil no-holds-barred grudge match winner take all.

Uh-huh. Yeah, we're really ... (Below threshold)
astigafa:

Uh-huh. Yeah, we're really making a better world in the Middle East. Everything is much better, improving daily. For the sake of your argument, I hope that a thousand innocent people die there today; we can call it Jay Tea day. That okay with you?

Rah! Yay! Go! Our Team! Which geopolitical region will we destabilize next -- for the good of the world?


Jay - a qibble: for somethi... (Below threshold)

Jay - a qibble: for something to be destablized, it has to be stable to begin with.

astigafa: here's a choice f... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

astigafa: here's a choice for you:

Take an action that will end up with a thousand people being killed today, but end there.

Take no action, and let ten people be killed every day for the next year.

The world ain't all sunshine and roses, schmuck. I'd like to see your "solution" to the problems. I'm tired of putting forth my ideas and watching you pick at them. Wny not offer up your own for a change?

J.

Jay, Nice summary. ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jay,
Nice summary. The people who have no solution can only criticize and pick at the cons of real solutions since no solutions will be perfect in the real world. That 's what I called the "perfection fallacy". Just like the Dems: for all their bluffing and huffing they haven't offered any real solutions yet, only talking points.

Yeah, we're really makin... (Below threshold)

Yeah, we're really making a better world in the Middle East. Everything is much better, improving daily.

Improving monthly, maybe.

People die in wars. People also die for lack of wars.

Pick your poison.

Jay;Good post, but... (Below threshold)
kevino:

Jay;

Good post, but you forgot two important issues in 2000:
1. The sufferring of the Iraqi people prior to the war. Bin Laden said in his declaration of war in 1996: "More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression (sanction) imposed on Iraq and its nation."
2. The troops "occupying" Saudi Arabia. Again from Bin Laden's declaration of war: "The latest and the greatest of these aggressions, incurred by the Muslims since the death of the Prophet (ALLAH'S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM) is the occupation of the land of the two Holy Places [Saudi Arabia: Mecca and Medina] the foundation of the house of Islam, the place of the revelation, the source of the message and the place of the noble Ka'ba, the Qiblah of all Muslims by the armies of the American Crusaders and their allies."

I've said before that Middl... (Below threshold)
MikeB:

I've said before that Middle East's cancer is getting the chemotherapy treatment... all the while the left is screaming about how 'the patient' is feeling worse. Stopping chemo before the cancer is killed is certain death.

In order to get better, sometimes things must first get worse.

- MikeB

Thank you for an excellent ... (Below threshold)
wave_man:

Thank you for an excellent post, Jay.

I've heard the Crusades thrown around today as a moral equivanlent to the events occuring today. After all, Christian engaged in the same terror for the same reasons, right?

The difference is that the Crusades were not sanctioned by Biblical reference. The Koran [Q'uran, whatever] specifically states that if a person cannot be converted, the Muslim has the responsibility to kill them. Muslims that fail to follow this tenet [the majority] find themselves under the same pressures from the radicals that we are experiencing.

This is a fight for civilization as we know it. Modern ideas, promoted by our forefathers in the 18th century with roots in ancient Greek ideas, or the 8th century theocracy as you mention in your post. We must keep these people on the run. Peace at any price is not acceptable.

Jay: [to astigafa]: "Wn... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Jay: [to astigafa]: "Wny not offer up your own (ideas) for a change?"

Wow...now THAT'S harsh!! Asking Lightweight Lefty Loonies (triple redunancy) for (gasp) IDEAS is soooooo cruel.

I can handle the occaisional expletives on this site. But if you're going to be so mean as to ask Leftists to THINK...well, I just don't know if I take it. You obviously don't understand how fragile and sensitive they are. Please reconsider. :)

"Pick your poison"</... (Below threshold)

"Pick your poison"

Well said.

I've heard the Crusades ... (Below threshold)

I've heard the Crusades thrown around today as a moral equivanlent to the events occuring today. After all, Christian engaged in the same terror for the same reasons, right?

WRONG!!

The Crusades were not in any way comparable to a haphazzard [well, the third and fourth crusade maybe, but they never really got anywhere or did anything] and ad hoc militarism of expedience. It was not a plundering raid; it was not piracy.

It was the formal, collective European counter-attack against two islamic empires who were invading Europe from two sides, and had been doing so for 400 years.

The Moorish Empire in the west had been in Spain since the 730s; the Seljuks -- forerunners of the Ottomans -- had been fighting and defeating the Byzantines in the east starting in the 800s, and effectively pushed them back to the gates of Constantinople after Manzikert in 1076. The First Crusade was called for in 1099.

People who justify the current pan-islamist violence because, boo hoo hoo, Europe "crusaded" them really need to get themselves a calendar and figure out how to use it. And this goes especially for most of the soft-skulled nincompoops who teach history in US schools.

Classic military doctrine: if you are being invaded by two sides at once [a pincer movement] you have two options:
1] if you have territory you can give up, you retreat;
2] if you do not have territory to give up, you counter-attack in the middle.

Europe was being invaded through Spain and through the Balkans. Can Europe retreat? To where? Britain?

Europe counter attacked in the middle -- which is [consult a map...] PALESTINE.

Wanna know how to get the peasants on board? Advertise it as "reconquer the Holy Lands".

I and many others, who h... (Below threshold)
MyPetGloat:

I and many others, who have served in the military, believe that Vietnam would have been in the US military win column; had it not been for John F Kerry and his supporters assuring America's enemies that they were here to help them.

McNamara:

"There aren't many examples in which you bring two former enemies together, at the highest levels, and discuss what might have been. I formed the hypothesis that each of us could have achieved our objectives without the terrible loss of life. And I wanted to test that by going to Vietnam.

The former Foreign Minister of Vietnam, a wonderful man named Thach said, "You're totally wrong. We were fighting for our independence. You were fighting to enslave us."
We almost came to blows. That was noon on the first day.

"Do you mean to say it was not a tragedy for you, when you lost 3 million 4 hundred thousand Vietnamese killed, which on our population base is the equivalent of 27 million Americans? What did you accomplish? You didn't get any more than we were willing to give you at the beginning of the war. You could have had the whole damn thing: independence, unification."

"Mr. McNamara, You must never have read a history book. If you'd had, you'd know we weren't pawns of the Chinese or the Russians. McNamara, didn't you know that? Don't you understand that we have been fighting the Chinese for 1000 years? We were fighting for our independence. And we would fight to the last man. And we were determined to do so. And no amount of bombing, no amount of U.S. pressure would ever have stopped us."",

But it was all John Kerry's fault..

Wah.
Wah.
Wah.

But it was all John Kerr... (Below threshold)

But it was all John Kerry's fault..

Pet, the Vietnam war was not lost militarily. The Vietnam war was lost politically.

It doesn't matter what Vietnamese politicians with rose-colored hindsight glasses say, they were losing and badly. As "the equivalent of 27 million Americans" would attest.

The reality is: they didn't win; we got tired of beating them and started feeling guilty about it. More than guilty: ashamed.

How dare we beat a nation of 12-century peasants. And for non-critical national purposes.

And that shame and guilt was voiced by the lips of Lt Kerry and Jane Fonda and the Trogs and Creedence Clearwater Revival.

My god, I don't even know w... (Below threshold)
jp2:

My god, I don't even know where to begin on a post like this. Anyways, the major point is this.

You are thanking Bush and his neo-con agenda for destabilizing the Middle East, the only problem being that the entire goal is the complete opposite.

In fact, in the administration's own "National Security Strategy" it says one of the terrorists' goals is to "destabilize the Middle East...and strike...other free nations with ever-increasing violence." So are you saying that Bush is helping the terrorists or what?

If you think that this latest escalation in violence and instability is helpful - well, one sign of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results. If you think Israel attacking Lebanon and Palestine is going to reap benefits, history is not on your side. Anyways, please notice that knocking out Saddamm didn't help stabilize the Middle East. Neither will this current violence.

"Al Qaeda is on the run, its leadership beyond decimated."

And recruitment and attacks are up.

"Saddam Hussein is no longer providing material support for terrorism around the world."

However, for some reason, terrorism attacks are way up and Iraq is way more dangerous to the world. What do you prefer?

"Afghanistan is no longer ruled by brutal, 9th-century theocrats."

The warlord presence there is strikingly high. The Taliban, despite the administration's claims that they are all gone, is resurging and killing Canadians. Is that who you are referring to as theocrats?

jp2...there is so much swil... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

jp2...there is so much swill in your post I thought I would just pick one small turd and see if it passes the "sniff test".

"Iraq is way more dangerous to the world."

REALLY...how?? Iraq no longer threatens Kuwait, Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia (just to name a few). They were a perpetual threat under Saddam. Saddam was an active sponsor of terror...and even a very visible PAYMASTER for it!

Iraq's internal struggles do "threaten the world"...though you can certainly pretend they do.

the rest of your scree was no better that the Iraq comment since it begins from the premise that Bush: "destabilized the Middle East"

Really?...Bush? So the Middle East was "stable" right up until Bush was inaugurated? Wowser!

make that: "Iraq's internal... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

make that: "Iraq's internal struggles do NOT "threaten the world"...

If you think that this l... (Below threshold)

If you think that this latest escalation in violence and instability is helpful - well, one sign of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Right.

Let's negotiate, and expect different results this time. Camp David, Oslo ... we see how well that worked, don't we?

On the other hand, if you kick their collective ass hard enough often enough, you get peace treaties: Egypt; Jordan.

And hence, two governments who no longer finance the proxy/mercenaries. With Iraq gone, that's another. Syria and Iran are almost literally begging to be taken off the terror finance list with this move. They're the biggies right now.

And then what will happen to those recruits volunteering like mad to jihad Israel, the 51st US state? or to take their jihad directly to the US itself? All dressed up but no money to buy guns. Just these pointy sticks. I've heard if you throw them hard enough, you can take out an F-16.


If you think Israel attacking Lebanon and Palestine is going to reap benefits, history is not on your side.

Egypt... Jordan...

The formal Lebanese government is begging, begging to be left out of this. They can't control Hezbollah and don't see why they should be losing their cajones just because Syria's and Iran's mercenary force lives in their country.

Part of the "...and anyone who looks like you" doctrine.


for some reason, terrorism attacks are way up and Iraq is way more dangerous to the world.

And when you start taking antibiotics not only do you still have whatever infection you had, but now you also have diarrhea. Guess antibiotics don't work either, izzat it?


Sticking your fingers in your ears and singing protest songs at the top of your lungs doesn't substitute for insightful commentary, bubela.

Jay, most excellent post.</... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

Jay, most excellent post.

You are doing your part, as a blogger with over one million hits a day, to clarify our military goals and conjure up support at home for our troops and their monumental efforts. Just imagine if the blogisphere had existed during the Vietnam War? Just imagine if China was not able to censor Yahoo?

I especially enjoy the smack downs. But we should all take a moment and realize that Lee's mom makes him wear a helmet on the street.

The problem, Jay, is that y... (Below threshold)
mantis:

The problem, Jay, is that your ideas are supported by such a deluded view of the middle east. Let's look at your list of how things have changed in the past 6 years:

1) Afghanistan is no longer ruled by brutal, 9th-century theocrats.

You should really read about what's happening in Afghanistan now. Start here.

2) Al Qaeda is on the run, its leadership beyond decimated.

I have no idea how you could objectively believe this. Did you miss Madrid, London, the healthy presence of AQ in Iraq, and OBL's little video diaries over the past few years? Why should we believe they are "beyond decimated"?

3) Saddam Hussein is no longer providing material support for terrorism around the world.

True, and this is a good thing, but from what I've seen so far his support was minimal.

4) Jewish settlers (alias "hostages") are no longer in the Gaza Strip.

You write that as if the settlers were being kept there against their will, when in fact they had to be torn out of those settlements by the Israeli military. I don't see why exactly you think this is a good thing.

5) Hamas and Hezbollah are no longer carrying out low-level attacks and building their forces for a major battle with Israel, but instead finding themselves fighting for their very survival, with very few avenues for retreat.

Conflict fuels these groups, or weren't you aware of that? The past two days events will only serve to garner support for Hezbollah, even if the Lebanese government finally cracks down.

6) Libya has renounced and surrendered its WMD program.

Definitely a good thing.

7) Iran, used to comfortably denouncing and threatening America from afar, finds itself quietly surrounded by the US military -- major ground forces east and west, and a sizable naval presence to the south.

Considering that pushing for war in Iran is about the worst thing we could do right now, I'm not sure what difference this makes.

8) Syria finds its puppet in Lebanon cutting its strings on one side, while watching America utterly destroy their former ally Iraq to the other -- and working on rebuilding Iraq into a nation that will be our friend, not theirs.

In case you haven't noticed, Iraq is quickly becoming a conflict between Sunni and Shia, with Syria supporting the Sunni and Iran supporting the Shia. It will take a miracle for Iraq to emerge from this as our friend and not one of theirs, if it stays intact at all.

Take off your rose colored glasses, friend, and realize that our little democracy adventure in the middle east is not exactly yielding the rewards you hoped for, much less the ones you think have already come to pass.

Iraq is quickly becoming... (Below threshold)

Iraq is quickly becoming a conflict between Sunni and Shia, with Syria supporting the Sunni and Iran supporting the Shia.

Aye, and the long-view cynic that I am suggests we let them have at it if they break out with civil war. Nothing is better than for two groups who both hate you to fight amongst each other.

That would benefit Israel as well since Syria and Iran will have a larger portion of their own budgets being taken up with non-anti-israeli puppetry. ...and I'm pretty sure Assad and the Grand Ayatollah know that, so I'm not sure how strongly they're going to push for iraq being anything other than a US pud-muddle.

Jay Tea asked the critical ... (Below threshold)
kevino:

Jay Tea asked the critical question: What is the Liberal response to the situation?

What we are getting from Liberals here and abroad is a lot of hand-waving. The Left has done an excellent job in tearing down the neocon agenda. Fine. What do they propose to do in its place? Rep. Pelosi, for example, has repeatedly outlined the various ways that she hates the Bush Administrations plans in Iraq, but then she states that the great strength of the Democratic party is that they don't have a plan of their own: they have a variety of opinions and don't want to present a conprehensive plan to the American people.

In the comments to to-hell-with-george-bush.php I noted that negotiation -- not violence -- was the Left's response to the second most important issue of the day: a nuclear Iran. I asked the simple question: what is the basis of this negotiation? I never got a response.

In hezbollah-captures-2-israeli-soldiers-israel-strikes-back.php I asked for examples of strong Liberal plans to confront Islamic extremism. That comment thread ended immediately.

Suppose the Democratic Party had gone into the election of 2004 with this program:
1. Bush got us into war for invalid reasons.
2. The solution to this problem is political: impeach him.
3. We don't like the way that the way is being fought
4. Here are our thoughts to winning it quicker.
5. We don't like war in general.
6. We are at war, and we're going to end this the way Americas usually do: we win no matter what.
7. Thanks to Bush's stupidity, we have a host of new enemies (esp. Sunnis trying to regain power).
8. We propose to solve this the way that Americans usually do: grind them into powder.

That's an idea: work against Bush politically and win the war. Could have been a winning strategy.

But they didn't do that. They undermined the Bush administration and by promoting a pure anti-war position. We literally have signs carried the streets saying "War's don't solve anything," and Juan Cole saying [about Iran]: "We don't want your stinking war."

Our enemies are eager to fight us.
Their leaders are openly saying that Americans are weak: just send American soldiers home in body bags, and they'll give up.
And Left are telling the world: we don't want to fight.

How does the Left propose to deal with this situation?

1) MikeB: Multi-modality ... (Below threshold)

1) MikeB: Multi-modality therapy is useful in many cancer treatments. Will the radiation therapy be concurrent or sequential in the Middle East? Will we use hyper-fractionated schedules for Tehran?

2) kevino: we know the answer - a rolling fast. Or is that roll over and die?

Don't Rock the Boat...Actua... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Don't Rock the Boat...Actually Bush is very much for the status quo of the powerful: his unwillinqness to ruffle China or Putin for example on human rights and democracy in the G-8 summit his obsequious attitude to America's rich ''my constituency'' ..It was largely Cheney and the neo-cons who convinced him(he didn't need much convincing) of the wisdom of invading Iraq...It looks like it an heroic strugggle in the larger Mid East now only because he never questioned or doubted Iraq would be an easy victory...Sorry I must leave now..

astigafa: here's a choic... (Below threshold)
astigafa:

astigafa: here's a choice for you: Take an action that will end up with a thousand people being killed today, but end there. Take no action, and let ten people be killed every day for the next year.

Well, it's like this, dear boy: What you have offered above is nothing less than a textbook example of a false choice. You can't quantify what you're asserting -- from the point of view of an independent and impartial perspective -- and you're making argument by analogy: you can't know that this math applies.

The world ain't all sunshine and roses, schmuck.

I hope you will allow me to quote you on this.

I'd like to see your "solution" to the problems. I'm tired of putting forth my ideas and watching you pick at them. Wny not offer up your own for a change?

You'd like to see my "solutions" to "the problems," uh-huh. (The only people who post on Wizbang are those who have "solutions" to "the problems," check. Man, are you vulnerable.) My "ideas." Said the fly to the spider? Does Kevin know you're using the computer again?

So fomenting instability in the Middle East is one of your "solutions," your "ideas"? Okay, here's one of my "solutions": become literate, and then make an effort to return to your curmudgeonly roots. The people you're sucking up to are just a bunch of losers. You know this, on some level, and it makes you bitter, and why not? The Republican Party is no more touched by the divine than the Democratic, and that's what keeps this particular corner of the online world buzzing, isn't it? Ideological interactive idiocy, the eternal gelding race between the left and the right.

But you don't have to root for the criminally thick, Jay, okay? You don't have to commit intellectual suicide.

And don't be so goddamn peevish; people can see this stuff, it's embarrassing.

As for "I'm tired of putting forth my ideas and watching you pick at them" quit, poor child! People "picking at your ideas" comes with the territory, or didn't you know that? (And who are you, but a person makes a living by picking at other people's ideas?) My beamish boy; tell me where I can send you a pair of shoes; they'll change your life.

What, still confused? Oh, I keep forgetting you're from New Hampshire. It's like this: You publish, the readers read, and then they piss, pass out, or otherwise protest. The numb ones, of course, will post nauseatingly mawkish little "great post!" haiku, and the rest will dispute you, sometimes without cause -- just because you, dear boy, are you, and that gives them the pip.

And you are right to despise them -- all of them -- rhetorically, personally and ideologically -- but not in your flabby little heart. Do what you can to walk away from thinking about work in your off hours, especially those evil posts by the insufferable astigafa. I want you to sleep well tonight.

-- But now that I have reread your post, I begin to think that you could be offering me space in which to publish my own little "exhalations." Great! Splendid? My ideas, going out to the world! A man of letters, and all! At last, at last, at last.

And most especially proud, let me say, to be associated with a publication, be it offline or on, that corporately endorses instability in the Middle East. Way to go, Kev! Think of the honor.

Of course I'll write for you, Jay Tea, ya big lunk -- you are an "editor," aren't you?

astigafa:Somehow y... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

astigafa:

Somehow you remind me of a snake eating its tail. Can't really figure out where you start, and where you end.

Astiwhatevera,Lot ... (Below threshold)
GoldenGreg:

Astiwhatevera,

Lot of response to say absolutely nothing. Good job at doing a normal non-logical and wandering reply. Your words per substance ratio is close to 95%. Good job, even worse than most trolls here.

Somehow, astigafa missed th... (Below threshold)

Somehow, astigafa missed the "or" part of "put up or shut up." Instead, he decided to vent his spleen on a political party to which I don't belong, a state to which I do, and the readers here. (I exclude myself because that's a given.)

I wonder if he realizes that he insulted himself in that laundry list, when he included the readers?

Nah, that's giving him too much credit.

J.

J.

USMC Pilot:Some... (Below threshold)
astigafa:

USMC Pilot:

Somehow you remind me of a snake eating its tail. Can't really figure out where you start, and where you end.

In the words of Douglas Adams: "The trick is to bang the rocks together, guys!"

Hey"J.J."... (Below threshold)
astigafa:

Hey

"J.

J."

:

I wonder if he realizes that he insulted himself in that laundry list, when he included the readers? Nah, that's giving him too much credit.

Oooh, cutting.

...And as far as not contri... (Below threshold)
astigafa:

...And as far as not contributing ideas and such, what do you do with the words, "What you have offered above is nothing less than a textbook example of a false choice. You can't quantify what you're asserting -- from the point of view of an independent and impartial perspective -- and you're making argument by analogy: you can't know that this math applies"?

Right; you do nothing, becuase they didn't cover logic in your junior college.

Now go blow your nose.

What do I call that, astiga... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

What do I call that, astigafa? I call it focusing on me and my arguments, and not the issues. You don't like to ever discuss the issues, only criticize others' opinions of issue (and the people themselves).

It's an old phrase, but "pimple on the ass of humanity" seems to fit you. Utterly useless and annoying.

J.

The question has been raise... (Below threshold)
kevino:

The question has been raised:

How does the Left propose to deal with this situation?

So far the Liberal response is sound and fury -- all directed at the Bush Administration and the GOP -- not at Islamic Extremists.

Are we to believe that the Left has the guts to stand up to Islamic Extremism throughout the world, but doesn't have the guts to present a comprehensive plan that we can examine?

Anybody?




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy