November 08, 2006
The Islamist terrorists probably don't have nukes. The odd dirty bomb and possibly a malfunctioning suitcase bomb or old warhead, but that's a worst case scenario. In the grand scheme of things they are much less dangerous.
We won the Cold War with little help from the Democrats. We can win this one too.
Update: Misha, who is a proud American by choice, chimes in:
We won in spite of the Democrats doing everything they possibly could to aid and comfort the Soviets (see: Kennedy, Ted “*Hic!*â€, among others) and I’m still around, as are all of my kinfolk....It's been awhile since I mentioned that in the first go around of this blog, I called it Nice Jawa.Call me an unabashed optimist, call me anything you like, but having stared at and witnessed the defeat of the Soviets who were some real badasses with means the likes of which Ahmed the Cave-Dwelling Mooselimb Jihadi can’t even dream of, I don’t see us losing to a bunch of ululating, 7th century savages, no matter HOW much the Dhimmis are going to help them.
Quite a good debate going on in the comments section. The kind of debate where long-time lurkers and occasional commenters come out of the woodwork to make very important points. The kind of comments that give me hope that we can keep comments open because they are not controlled by the very people I started this blog to refute. To the pessimists let me make a point. When thinking about security you need to distinguish between the probability of a worst case scenario occuring and the impact of that worst case scenario.
The worst case scenario from the latter years of the Cold War was full scale nuclear war. This would have meant the end of the human occupied world as we know it. But the probability of it occuring was low because the Soviets were rational.
The worst case scenario from the Islamists is that they set off a low-level nuclear bomb in multiple U.S. cities. That would be horrible and we should do everything in our power to stop it, but the U.S. would go on as a nation state. The probability of this occuring should the Islamists get a bomb is high, but the impact (compared to the impact of a Soviet strike) would be low.
And to those who think U.S. policies had no effect on the end of the Soviet Union a couple of basic points. In a command-and-control economy, such as in the ol' USSR, there is a choice between guns and butter. When price is not the mechanism for which demands are fulfilled, the government has to decide what people want. In this case, the Soviets thought its people wanted tanks, but people just wanted bread to eat.
In a free society where goods are distributed via the price mechanism, there is no choice between guns and butter. We order more guns, and then those who make the guns buy butter.
So, when we make the claim we spent the Soviet Union into oblivion, we really mean it. We produced missiles, which helped our strengthen our economy in the near term. The Soviets produced missiles, which hurt their economy in the near term because it meant people didn't get the goods and services they demanded.
Second, Greg makes the rare good point in the comments about the Polish people being on the vangaurd and the role of the Pope. But what he fails to mention is that Solidarity was financially supported by the U.S. and that the Pope literally conspired with Reagan and especially Lady Thatcher to start a revolution in his home country.
Posted by: Rusty at
05:45 PM
| Comments (36)
| Add Comment
Post contains 643 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: Borat at November 08, 2006 11:42 AM (v7DMp)
My guess is that the Dhimmicrats will abandon Iraq, which will promptly be over run by Iran with the excuse of establishing "regional stability". Iran will grab the oil fields and become a Nuclear Superpower (with the help of the IAEA/UN) as well as the worlds 2nd largest oil producer inside of two years.
Posted by: blackflag at November 08, 2006 11:43 AM (Mq5jS)
You realize you just cant have it all.
He’s your oldest and your best friend,
If you need him, hell be there again.
He’s always willing to be second best,
A perfect lodger, a perfect guest.
Beautiful loser, read it on the wall
And realize, you just cant have it all.
...you cant have it all, you cant have it all,
Oh, oh, ... cant have it all.
Posted by: Greg at November 08, 2006 11:46 AM (v7DMp)
Posted by: The Wave at November 08, 2006 11:52 AM (v7DMp)
With the wisdom of an old man.
He wants his home and security,
He wants to live like a sailor at sea.
Against the wind album.
Posted by: Howie at November 08, 2006 11:52 AM (D3+20)
Posted by: Wormpaste at November 08, 2006 11:54 AM (rtnQC)
Actually the rapture happens if Hillary is elected.
Posted by: blackflag at November 08, 2006 11:57 AM (Mq5jS)
Posted by: CafeenMan at November 08, 2006 11:58 AM (eNwl1)
You are joking, right?
We won the cold war because the Soviet Union imploded, with no help from cut-and-run Ronnie, although he gets the credit.
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall".
What a crock of shit.
The wall was coming down, anyway, whether he wanted it to or not.
Or maybe it was his nonexistent "star wars" program that did it?
Billions of US dollars spent on a nonexistent project?
Where did the money really go?
To the Contras, in Nicaragua, perhaps, or was part of it used for payment to Iran for holding the hostages and then releasing them on the first day of his presidency?
Ronnie parted the Red Sea, also.
He just happened to be there when the Red Sea parted, so he can take the credit for that, too, can't he?
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 08, 2006 11:58 AM (F+9W9)
The 10 year-old Steiner Ranch Elementary student (in Leander I.S.D. near Austin, Texas) says that he was browsing such sites during his Computer Lab class period when a fellow student informed on him-- as though he were doing something wrong.
"He just ran up to my teacher in front of the whole class, saying he's searching terrorist stuff about 9/11," Mark told Jones.
Mark reports that his teacher was "shocked" and told him that he "shouldn't have been looking at conspiracy theory websites."
Can't wait for an independent investigation into 9-11.
Posted by: Greg at November 08, 2006 11:59 AM (v7DMp)
From Harry Truman to Scoop Jackson. From the AFL-CIO's George Meany (whose efforts to unionize foreign workers worked hand-in-hand with the State Department in heading off Communist unionizers) to Edward R. Murrow (who, lest George Clooney's efforts eclipse history, opposed Soviet Communism as much as he opposed McCarthy at home). In more recent memory, there were the Brzezinskis and Sam Nunns and Harold Browns.
The Democratic Party was not always the party of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter and John Kerry, and this election, with more moderate Democrats, many of them veterans, holds the hope and expectation that it won't remain such, either.
Posted by: Lurking Observer at November 08, 2006 11:59 AM (/ZD7V)
Greg - yes, I love how they develop young minds to have approved thoughts only.
Posted by: CafeenMan at November 08, 2006 12:02 PM (eNwl1)
This may actually be better for the administration since the President no longer needs to excessively abide the congress out of party loyalty. It'll be fun watching George W. veto the Dem's and flank them through the Executive prerogatives.
Yup, I'm afraid I'm the "bottle is half full" optimist type!
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at November 08, 2006 12:04 PM (vixLB)
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at November 08, 2006 12:25 PM (oC8nQ)
http://www.powerclam.com/drupal/node/99
Posted by: BC at November 08, 2006 12:32 PM (/UAJE)
This may actually be better for the administration since the President no longer needs to excessively abide the congress out of party loyalty. It'll be fun watching George W. veto the Dem's and flank them through the Executive prerogatives.
Yup, I'm afraid I'm the "bottle is half full" optimist type!
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at November 8, 2006 12:04 PM "
Great attempt at spin.
On the other side of the coin, it will also be great fun to see virtually NO legislation presented to Bush for his signature, that the Dems have not approved, in advance.
"You want this bill passed, when Mr. President?".
HaHaHaHa
More tax cuts for the rich?
More subsidies for the oil and pharmacy companies? I don't think so.
He can veto away.
He is still a lame duck, but now he has been deprived of his own agenda.
If he decides not to cooperate with the Dems, to get legislation passed, Bush will be able to clear a lot of brush during the next 2 years, since there won't be much else for him to do.
A bigger problem for Bush, is that now that the election is over, the GOP members of congress, along with the Dems, will be telling him what they really think about his handling of Iraq and other issues.
First change? Rumsfeld will resubmit his resignation, which will be accepted, this time.
Don really needs more time to spend with his family.
Next change? Bush will reveal his secret plan for victory in Iraq.
Just kidding. Bush doesn't have a secret or otherwise plan for victory, in Iraq.
His plan is to keep pissing off the muslims, so that he can be the "war president" for 2 more years.
Historians are already saying that Bush is in contention for Worst US president and have dropped the qualifier "since so-and-so".
The next 2 years and Iraq will determine his place in history as the worst president or just one of the top ten worst.
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 08, 2006 12:36 PM (F+9W9)
But I understand that you need to throw these people red meat. It's a blog, you don't get "hits" unless you appeal to the lowest common denominator. So I understand what you're doing here and I don't hold these statements against you.
Posted by: Professor von Nostrand at November 08, 2006 12:37 PM (Bwpq7)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 08, 2006 01:12 PM (dk0ga)
LOL! Are you really that simple that once you view the outcome of
history you think you could of done it different and it would come out
the same way. Gee....the Allies won WWII so the US should not of fought
and we would not of lost 400,000 but still won the war. Of course if
you don't believe that the terrorist want to spread Jihad around the
world just because they say so why would I expect you to think the
Soviets wanted a world revolution that they would control and lead,
just because they said so.
Posted by: Randman at November 08, 2006 01:48 PM (Sal3J)
2 years is a long time, but a lot of damage can be done...let's hope the damage can be fixed..
Posted by: Havok at November 08, 2006 01:58 PM (ErOeR)
Wrong. The Soviets were never going to use their nukes because they knew it meant their destruction, i.e., MAD. Jihadists are under no such limitations. If they get one and use it, it's the end of America as we know it.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 08, 2006 02:47 PM (8e/V4)
There are no Arabs or muslims in the Bible. It wasn't chaotic till they took control. Before then it was the cradle of civilization, warts and all--not the cancer.
Dumb-fuck.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 02:58 PM (bLPT+)
The situation in Afghanistan is certainly not getting any more favorable. The Republicans have had complete control for 6 years, Why was anyone really surprised that the Democrats won so many seats?
Well the Democrats are going to have a bit of a chance to be of influence, I for one don't foresee the end of the world as we know it.
As for the upcoming mandatory gay marriage act ; well I don't expect that to effect me at all. As for those semi closeted gays who are threatened by it I am sure that they will speak up about it.
Posted by: John Ryan at November 08, 2006 03:10 PM (TcoRJ)
The soviet Union imploded because America outspent them. Their commie bullshit couldn't compete with decadent capitalism.
The Dems cannot block legislation--they don't have the votes. Bush can veto every single piece of shit legislation they introduce. The biggest problem for the Dems is now that the mid-terms are over, he doesn't have to restrain himself one iota. Say goodby to the Mullahs in Iran and Baby Assad in Syria. Say hello to a shit-load of dead terrorists.
The Democrats will never reveal their secret plan for victory in Iraq because they don't have one. That, and because America is not at war with Iraq.
Their real plan is to become peace makers by taking credit for the eventual troop drawdown in Iraq, and kow-towing to the muslims for the next two years--at which point they'll be tossed out of office.
Todays PC "historians" will not write the country's history any more than the British did in 1883.
President Bush will be recognized by future generations as the man who took the war to the islamic aggressors. The Democrats will be remembered the same way they're remembered for opposing WWII involvement. As hopeless appeasers.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 03:15 PM (bLPT+)
I know that you really don't believe half of what you've written here. If you do, you're even stupider than you let on.
The overwhelming bi-partisan support you cite for containing the Soviets never existed. Congress had plenty of traitors like J. William Fullbright, and even card carrying communists. After the Vietnam War, the Democrats opposed it overwhelmingly.
It was the Democrats who prevented McArthur from bombing the Red Chinese in the Korean War fiasco, and it was the Dems who chose to cut 'n run from the Vietnam War they started. (sound familiar, asshole?)
You're a hopless leftist so you don't get converts unless you appeal to the lowest common denominator. So I understand what you're doing here and I do hold these statements against you.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 03:23 PM (bLPT+)
Please explain how things have only gotten worse in Iraq, as most journalists claim. During Zarqawi's heydey, the Coalition suffered the highset casualty rates of the mission. Al Qaeda is now decimated. Furthermore, Iraq is better off economically, politically, and human rights-wise than it ever has been.
The situation in Afghanistan cannot rationally be compared to the situation under the Taliban. Nato forces cintinue to stamp out terrorists and Taliban remnants.
The Republicans have never had complete control of anything. Congress and the Supreme Court check Presidential power. A 2/3 majority of Republicans would have been necessary to control Congress in any way, and the Supreme Court is still dominated by judicial activists who shit on the Constitution.
Why are the Democrats gloating after winning so few seats in Congress?
The world as fools like you knew it eneded on 911. If the Dems have their way, you'll see dozens of 911s.
As for the upcoming attempt by extremists to destroy the millenia old tradition of marriage; well I don't expect that to affect me at all, because America won't allow it.
How does the fact that homosexuals cant redfine marriage affect you? As for those semi-closeted gays who are threatened by marriage I am sure that they will speak up about it. You just did, right?
You haven't learned a thing in the last 6 months. As a leftist, you probably never will.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 03:44 PM (bLPT+)
Posted by: Greg at November 08, 2006 05:32 PM (v7DMp)
You are unbelievably stupid. The idiotic drivel you plagiarized isn't even worth addressing. The Soviet Union didn't expend its ghost money by engaging in an arms race with Poland and the Vatican.
Keep your helmet on 'tard. Not only will it protect your head from further injury, it'll block those transmissions you're receiving from the planet pollack.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 06:41 PM (bLPT+)
The utter stupidity of thinking the democrats will get us out of this war is sicking. We would have gone into Iraq regardless of who was in power at the time. We would also still be there. Of course they may get us out like Clinton did in Somalia. Just leave them dragging our dead through the streets. Sooooo proud them islamocrats are of that move.
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 08, 2006 07:01 PM (dk0ga)
1) With regard to your first point about probability and impact: You don’t explicitly say this, but you do seem to be resting everything on the assumption that the current strategy in the war on terror reduces the probability of the worst case scenario you describe. And I believe it is fair to say that the entire purpose of this blog rests on this assumption. Meanwhile, the assumption itself has been utterly destroyed by a recent report by all 16 of this country's intelligence agencies. In fact, the report found that the opposite of your assumption is true: there is an even greater probability that your worst case scenario will occur given current policy. And we don’t have to just go by that report; there are many scholars of all ideological stripes, most prominently Robert Pape of the University of Chicago, who have done research to back this up. We can take anecdotal evidence as well; for instance, the recent revelations that British intelligence may have spared us from an attack much worse than 9/11 suggests that our efforts have made matters much worse. Bottom line: It is all well and good to start a blog to refute a certain segment of opinion. It’s just that you haven’t actually done that.
2) When did Reagan argue that we should spend more money on the military to force the Soviets into a spending war and ultimate collapse? He argued we should spend more money on the military to catch up to the Soviets. Nobody in the conservative fold foresaw the Soviet collapse despite the fact that it was quite apparent that the regime’s days were numbered from the 1970s onward. This is a nice rebuttal to the usual partisan explanation for how the cold war ended.
3) Re: Guns and Butter; I'm sure the economics profession would benefit from your revolutionary new theory that there is no resource scarcity in a free market economy. I must have misunderstood your point here, but whatever it is you were trying to suggest, it can’t be that you think that a market economy is immune from spending itself into oblivion. Otherwise, maybe conservatives should stop suggesting that we’re spending too much on social programs because apparently in a market economy there are no choices that need to be taken seriously.
Posted by: Professor von Nostrand at November 08, 2006 09:25 PM (Bwpq7)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 09, 2006 04:58 AM (dk0ga)
The jihadis in the ME and beyond said that a vote for a Democrat in the US was as good as giving them victory. Why? Because they knew that a leftist Congress would not have the stomach to continue the fight. Why? Have they ever seen a Democrat controlled US fight? No, a la Clintoon in Somalia the Democrats run at the first sign of trouble or resistance. Carter in Tehran's revolucion days. Khobar towers, we had the goods on them and did nothing. Clintoon had OBL in his sights and wimped out because he was afraid what Shrillary would say? Who knows.
The point is that the only leaders in the US who have showed any fight at all in recent years are Republicans. I will not sully the reputations of Democrats past that have no relation to those who lead this cowardly party today by mentioning them in the same breath. The jihadis have said they wanted to destroy the US and have a 25 year strategy for the victory of the Kalipha. So far, they are right on track to complete the project on time and maybe even a tad early.
I just hope the generals are given enough time to make an orderly withdrawal by the cut-and-run controlled Congress.
There is not really much to say. I had been having an internal debate about whether it was a prudent time to by the mountain land for the stronghold. Seems to be my questions have been answered by the US body politic. Build the house as far off the grid as I can, stock up on essentials and try to weather the coming storm. And no, I am not one of those conspiracy theorists who think the end times are a comin'. But, it may be time to find a hidey hole.
The Hobo
Posted by: Robohobo at November 09, 2006 05:24 AM (Jjm6B)
Why is it that the Dhimmicrats don't believe what the Jihadis say? OBL says he hates Americans, not America. It is not an error in translation. His stated purpose is to destroy the Great Satan and he believes he has a g-d given (Allah given) right to kill 10 million Americans. Have you all not read his writings? Please do so, they are chilling. Islam in the revelations of their prophet, believe they have a right and duty to spread their faith with any means. Yes, that is right ANY! Including the sword. That is why they hack their enemies heads off with a sword! This is the LITERAL truth of what they say and THEY take it all literally.
For G-d's sake folks, they mean what they say. Wake up before it is too late. It is not a war on a tactic, this is a long war on a religions fanatical believers.
And, just shut up with the moral equivalence about Christians, please.
The Hobo
Posted by: Robohobo at November 09, 2006 05:34 AM (Jjm6B)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 09, 2006 07:33 AM (dk0ga)
Must be really rewarding work.
Posted by: Machinations at November 09, 2006 12:27 PM (D4Sxg)
Here's a suggestion, grow a sack and use the name you normally post with, you spineless shitbirds.
Posted by: davec at November 09, 2006 01:44 PM (QkWqQ)
34 queries taking 0.0267 seconds, 191 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
