Pangloss

We're digressing. This thread has a point, and I want to focus on that point. The question is: How would things BE DIFFERENT today had we not gone to Iraq? What, exactly, would be different, and how, specifically, would it be different? Specifics, people. Specifics. I am absolutely going to beat this drum until I see a comprehensive set of answers like the small piece of the puzzle that Bascule provided above.

Another interpretation on that, by the way, is that France and Great Britain were the only two powers interested in doing anything with the region after WW1. That interpretation comes from Yergin's "The Prize", the definitive history of the oil industry. Yergin goes on to note that Britain and France made a big trade during this time, with France essentially giving Britain Iraq in exchange for Jordan. This left Britain in posession of the Mosul oil fields, which were the only proven reserve at the time. They were well aware of the importance of this, and carved out the nation of Iraq accordingly, making sure to leave access to the sea. Not that it particularly matters today, I suppose, but it's something to think about the next time you pull into a Shell station to gas up. (BP did Iran, Shell did Iraq, if memory serves, but I may be a bit off here.)

I actually agree with you for the most part, but I think it's interesting that it's difficult to be more specific than this. Bascule has an interesting point above. Notice how you have to go to that level of detail, though -- you can't just say, for example, that there'd be no deficit, because the deficit dwarfs the amount of money we've spent in Iraq. But you could certainly make the point that the deficit would be much smaller. (And I have a feeling that there are ultimately going to be found many hidden costs associated with this venture.)

I was actually looking more for what WOULD have happened, rather than what people might WISH had happened. A realistic assessment, if you will. A lack of substantive response along those lines would seem to support the notion that it's easy to criticize, but harder to get at real solutions. Hindsight is 20/20, but only insofar as pinpointing mistakes. The phrase "you're doing it wrong" being a classic example.

Simple enough question, but actually pretty difficult to answer clearly, or in such a way that all agree. See what you can do with it. Answers should try to address the following categories: - Politics (international and US-domestic) - Economics - Military/Defense (training, fitness and equipment, i.e. readiness/preparedness) - Social/Misc (trust-of-government issues, popular partisanship, "mood of the country", etc) - Impact on other major issues/events (war on terror, national security, and impact on unrelated events like abortion, gun control, immigration, etc) (Note for international readers: Just to clarify, this question is intended to be US-focused, but your input is, as always, welcome. Please note the appropriate context if replying about affairs in your own country (which I think would be interesting, so please feel free to do so).)

Here's a search providing 233 links to the mainstream media's plethora of stories that came out yesterday about the new Danish study released yesterday indicating that the incidence of postpartum depression may be much higher than previously believed (13% in this study): http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1111752875 Now. That's all very interesting, but what does it really say in the end? That new moms are short on sleep and under a lot of stress, right? Um.... DUH! Women, according to the study, are 7 times more likely to suffer psychiatric illness than other women, due to physiological changes and mental stress. Shocking, isn't it? Wow, who knew??!! But what I thought was really interesting was Dr. Timothy Johnson, live on ABC News last night, wrapping up the story at the anchor desk by saying that "now may be the time to begin mandatory psychiatric testing for all new mothers". And here's the kicker: Positive results would be followed-up with mandatory drug use! No, really! Mandatory because these women have children under their care! But who decides what constitutes PPD? Politicians and a medical community suffused with input from the pharmaceutical industry! So these women are going to be forced to take mind-altering drugs, against their will, just so they can raise their own children?! That's just mind-blowing. I can't believe that flew right past Charles Gibson. It may be quite revealing that the quote doesn't show up in print form on their web site and I can't find it in any search result, nor is it available in their online video selection from last night's show. I had to actually go back to the Tivo and watch it again a couple of times just to be sure I actually heard the man right. But apparently Dr. Johnson didn't just make it up out of the blue. I did some brief searches at Google and it seems as though this is apparently a major debate going on in the medical community, with many physicians, scientists and psychiatrists taking the side of mandatory testing and compulsory drug use! What the heck?! What do you all think?

I think it's interesting that you can buy it from Amazon.

If it is the child of modern liberalism, it has long since outgrown its parent and become a monster that envelopes the modern media (political correctness is more important than other concerns, regardless of ideology), conservatives (attacking political correctness is politically correct), politicians (what is it you need me to be for this week?), and pretty much all forms of mass media entertainment. Political correctness is the engine by which we are tossing individuality on the all-consuming fire of "greater good".

Dang, how did this guy slip by? I really thought we had everything dialed in perfect, but now he's gone and found out our little secret.

Thanks for passing that on, I was kinda wondering how he felt about that episode. To be honest, it really wasn't one of their best efforts, and the "serious point" was somewhat obscure and lost in the clutter, at least compared with most episodes. And given the usual political position of that show, the whole attack just came off as a little strange. But there was a valid point there. One has to appreciate the fact that he didn't follow the usual stereotype of sucking it up and pretending to enjoy it. He got treated about as heavy-handedly as anybody in that show ever has, and there's no reason why people should be expected to "get" South Park -- it's a free country, after all. If I were in his shoes I probably wouldn't like it either, so kudos for being honest.

I've heavily pruned this thread to remove off-topic and personal attack-related messages. Some of the replies may seem out of context above, and the participants may respond accordingly, so long as you remain on-topic and steer clear of personal attacks.

How much does a caught-on-camera, anti-minority flameout run these days anyway? (Also, is it tax-deductible?)

(hehe) Hi Shiney. Just to formalize what they're saying above, it's known as "9/11", or "September 11" here, because of the US's "reverse" dating system where we put the month before the day. (I'll bet there's some interesting history behind that convention.) Anyway, in this forum the 9/11 conspiracy theories are considered to be thoroughly debunked, and have been relegated to the Speculations board, which may be found here. So I'm closing this thread, but you're welcome to start another one there. Thanks.

Actually a lot of the articles I've been reading suggest the polonium could have come from many sources. I don't know if that's a misconception on the media's part (perhaps not understanding the concept of isotopes), or if that's for-real.

I don't know if you guys have been following the Litvinenko story or not, but the minor sub-stories that keep spinning out of the thing are just fascinating. This is the one about the former Russian security agent who was poisoned and died this past week. British Airways cleared one of their "radioactive" 767s today for flight, and unsurprisingly it flew back from Moscow to London passenger- (and hopefully polonium-) free. (Would YOU fly on that airplane?!) One of the more interesting statistics that came out of this is that BA finds itself having to contact thirty THOUSAND passengers who flew on the two planes over the subsequent ONE MONTH after the victim flew. If that's not a revealing statistic about the efficient state of the aviation industry (not to mention Boeing's airframes) I don't know what is. Both of those planes would basically have had to fly twice, absolutely full, every single day in order to hit that number. Pretty impressive. And all because of only a few *drops* of liquid as someone walked by the guy's table at dinner. Far less than the three *ounces* now allowed by our trusty airport screeners. I don't know if it was Russian security or what, but whoever these people were who got Litvinenko, they kinda make Al Qaeda look like small potatos, don't they?

Post-Purchase Deity Evaluation Form

If you'll scan back through this thread, you'll find that I already have. I specifically responded to this quote, for example: And I'll be happy to elaborate on my earlier response now by saying that I think that's an overgeneralization. Such things happen in culture, and that fact really has nothing to do with blacks per se, which is why I don't see your comment as racist, but I think it is a bit pointless, and it isn't even remotely bad, in and of itself. In fact, the fact that you don't have to be black (the fact that your point isn't racist) to eshew the use of proper English, or even get a haircut on a regular basis, just proves my point. Cultural change happens, like it or not. Anyway, getting back to the point, this is the quote you responded to from me: This is the quote from you that I was responding to: There's another interpretation of these words, which is that it makes no difference what the founding fathers actually thought they were doing -- what they were doing in reality is promising equality to all. Note the use of future tense in the phrase "to which every American was to fall heir" -- King appears to be aware that they didn't think so at the time. And you've responded to that point already, in the following manner: You have it right, here. And I have no problem with it, just as we "blindly misrepresent the intentions of our founding fathers" with many modern laws and regulations. Regarding the third point, I think it's clear that Abraham Lincoln WAS an African-American sympathizer. And in fact he wasn't the only one, following in the footsteps that trace back to the slave-holding founding fathers themselves (as exhibited by the likes of Benjamin Franklin, as well as others who disagreed with the inclusion of slavery as an institution when the country was founded, but specifically Franklin because he didn't think they were inferior, just uneducated -- I wonder what HE thought of the phrase "all men are created equal"!). But specifically regarding Lincoln, certainly he felt he had a more important issue to deal with (keeping together, then restoring the country), but he was also clearly aware of the moral flaw of slavery. "In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free -- honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve." And so I think it incorrect to say that he was not sympathetic to the plight of the African American. Superior, perhaps, but not unsympathetic.

That's true about corporations, but I don't think it's a bad thing, I think it's a GOOD thing. Don't get me wrong, I agree that they cause problems for society from time to time, but I don't WANT corporations making moral choices, I want SOCIETY to stand up, debate them, and then make the right choices, without having to worry about profit motive or keeping investors happy. There is no such thing as "corporate responsibility", for example, aside from what the law requires. Corporations are what they are. The onus is on society to keep their excesses in check.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/11/29/pelosi_drops_her_intelligence_post_pick/ Credit where it's due -- Pelosi denied Alcee Hastings the chairmanship of the intelligence committee, in spite of MAJOR pressure from the black caucus, which was already pissed off at her for putting pressure on Jefferson to resign after they found $90,000 in his freezer. (Yeah right, it's all just a racist plot. Yeesh.) It would have looked awfully hypocritical if she had folded and let him in, given her stance on political corruption in the Republican party prior to the election. So this is a double-win and an encouraging sign for skeptics like myself. Expect to see SOME kind of payoff for Hastings and/or the CBC in the near future, though.

You're missing something really important. It's plastic and shallow alright, but it's plastic and shallow for TWO reasons. Many black people may indeed be offended by that kind of apology. They may also be offended by the fact that his use of the N word became a media event. But you'll never hear about it from the mainstream media. THOSE offended people are simply are not on the agenda. Jesse and Al are well aware of it, though, and believe me, it is the one thing that keeps them up at night -- the people whom they ostensibly "represent", but who don't behave as they're told. Make no mistake about it, they're not just giving him "a chance to apologize to the community" -- they're demonstrating and flexing their power and authority over that alleged community.

Are they his true feelings? I don't know the man from Adam, how do I know that? Maybe he's just a complete idiot. What I do know is that this story is typical of the modern press, more interested in politically correct behavior and controversy than in uncovering truth and fact. Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton's involvement has no impact on me.

Both good points.

Bushenfreude is a term used by Daniel Gross in this article called "The Rich Aren't Republican Any More", which appeared in Slate the day after the election: http://www.slate.com/id/2153272/ The term is defined as "angry, well-off, well-educated yuppies, generally clustered on the coasts, who were funneling windfalls from Bush tax cuts into the campaigns of Democrats and preparing to vote for those who would raise taxes on their capital gains, their incomes, and their estates". ROFL! It's an interesting look at the demographics of the election. His main point seems to be that biggest change from Republican to Democrat was the wealthiest kind of voter. Here's an interesting quote: And another interesting tidbit: So much for "power to the people". (evil cackle)

Wow. I can think of few things in the entire history of my participation here that I've disagreed with more than practically every phrase in that quote.

Three disconnected nations is impossible because of the oil situation. You'd be leaving the Sunni with nothing (except, of course, their IEDs and AK-47s). It would also leave the Shi'a unable to develop the southern oil field (which currently produces almost nothing), because UN mandate requires a federalized oil company before international investment will be allowed to resume. (Of course Iran could do it anyway, and probably would under those circumstances, but that raises other issues.) A 3-inner-states solution that keeps a larger Iraqi state intact in a more-or-less confederation, splitting oil revenues, is a possibility with wide support. But it requires a peaceful period of cooperation in order to be achieved. This is unlikely WITH Americans in Iraq, and it is also unlikely if Americans leave. Catch-22.