Thursday, August 02, 2007

More signs of a complete disconnect with reality ...

Mark writes:
We initially went to war to destroy them and take out Osama bin Laden. However, that just war got put on the back burner so that we could pursue some other grand End to Evil strategy that had basically nothing to do with September 11 and our inital causus belli. The Taliban is therefore still around, as is Osama bin Laden, who is, we are assured, no longer relevant.

Short of a major and preemptive military invasion into Pakistan, both are likely to remain with us for at least the immediate. I would also urge conservatives not to pooh-pooh Obama's actual proposal on this too much since it may well come to that. However, anyone who has been even remotely following the discussion on Iraq would be aware that regardless of why Mark believes we went to war, we are actively fighting Osama's jackboots there as well. Allowing the enemy to regroup, whether in Pakistan or in Iraq, would be a Very Bad Thing.

38 comments:

Anonymous said...

And if invading Pakistan brings down the Musharraf government, then what? We'll likely end up with an Al Qaeda-dominated government with a full nuclear arsenal. Unless of course we invade Pakistan in toto. This would, of course, require tons more troops. I hope you, Victor, and the rest of the Laptop Bombardiers are ready to sign up rather than blithely sending those of us of draftable age into the Valley of Death for your grand End to Evil theories.

torquemada05 said...

Given that you know nothing of my age, background, or occupation you have no idea how funny that statement is.

It is simply a practical calculation. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are going to remain with us as long as they have a safe haven in northern Pakistan. At some point, someone is going to have to clean that place out, whether it is us, Pakistan, India, or the Tooth Fairy. That is not an End to Evil scheme, simply a factual calculation. If you disagree with it, please tell me where you think I went wrong.

Besides, we've heard quite a bit over the last several years about how opposition is not to the war on terrorism, but rather to the war in Iraq. I am simply taking them at their word on this one.

Anonymous said...

Shea's has become the Twilight Zone: Zippy is fighting a valiant battle for sanity against the RonPaulite gold-standard restorationist brigade that has charged in on this thread.

Shawn said...

Torq:

Good post as usual. Now onto your critic's stuff.

And if invading Pakistan brings down the Musharraf government, then what? We'll likely end up with an Al Qaeda-dominated government with a full nuclear arsenal.

Where is anyone talking about overthrowing the Musharraf government??? The talk about military endeavours in Pakistan (and that is all it is) involves assisting the Musharaaf government in dealing with Al Qaeda operatives should they actually be in northern Pakistan as is believed to be the case right now.

In light of certain major examples of worldwide intelligence snafus with regards to the Iraqi situation pre-war, it is not likely they are going to jump too quickly on this one if they can help it. And any military involvement is not likely to be extensive but instead smaller special forces stuff or (perhaps) targeted bombing campaigns.

Unless of course we invade Pakistan in toto. This would, of course, require tons more troops.

I do not seen anything akin to a massive invasion of Pakistan happening anytime soon. Not (at least) until things are a lot more stable in Afghanistan and Iraq than they are now and troops are taken out of there. (That does not rule out using small special forces units of course.)

I hope you, Victor, and the rest of the Laptop Bombardiers are ready to sign up

Do we have to listen to this fallacious argument again??? There is enough of a problem keeping those who in overt and covert ways undermine the projects in Afghanistan and Iraq at bay as it is already. The idea that every person who supports a military excursion should be willing to register to fight -assuming that they all would pass the military physical and general evaluation which is a stretch and a half in itself- would mean that the home front would be left to every fifth columnist seditionist without challenge to thereby poison the home front and thus weaken military morale.

If we should have learned anything from Vietnam -a war won on the battlefront but lost in the halls of Congress due to the influence of the marxist sponsored "antiwar" movement- it is what happens when there is a loss of support on the home front. And with the home front left to people like Mark Shea, that is precisely what would happen.

Should that scenario you seem to want to see happen, I hope you like chanting in Arabic facing Mecca five times a day amigo -cause refusing would get you a dull blade being sawed through your throat while you are told in chant how "great" Allah is.

rather than blithely sending those of us of draftable age

The last draft we had in this country ended in 1973 and even with Selective Service there has not been an attempt to enforce it since the mid 1980's. (Probably before you were born.) There is no support in the public for it and there is no support amongst the legislators for it either -well except for those who are trying to play politics with the war.

The bottom line son is that there is no draft and there is not likely to be one anytime soon. I remind you that the last congressional motion to institute a draft for this war -and which was only brought to the floor for a vote to shut the Democrats who tried to make it a political issue in 2004- was voted on October 5, 2004 and was defeated in the House 402-2.

into the Valley of Death for your grand End to Evil theories.

My concern that we are entering another Dark Ages of people who do not understand reason logic and how to use it properly is not helped when I consider how may young folks today parrot antiwar slogans and think that they are in doing so somehow speaking intelligently.

I doubt you will bother to take seriously informing yourself from sources apart from the kool-aid you are drinking courtesy of the geopolitically-challenged Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers like Mark Shea. But take heart, you need not worry about being drafted anytime soon as the party that endorsed re instituting the draft would commit a form of political hari kari.

There is a resolution in the House right now which was introduced by Rep. Rangel of New York six days into the Pelosi-controlled House of Representatives. You can follow it by googling HR 393. I doubt anything will come out of it because most introduced bills die in committee anyway. I kinda hope it does pick up steam so that the Republicans can make it an election issue in 2008: then watch how many candidates run from this issue like a vampire fleeing a crucifix.

Bubba said...

Shawn:

The idea that every person who supports a military excursion should be willing to register to fight... would mean that the home front would be left to every fifth columnist seditionist without challenge to thereby poison the home front and thus weaken military morale.

EXACTLY.

That ain't a bug, it's a feature. That ain't an unintended consequence, it is the ver reason that the "chickenhawk" smear is used.

Bubba said...

To be certain, I myself support a commodity-based currency. Zippy is right that liquidity lowers the cost of "doing business" -- that is, trading with others for goods and services in all its many forms. I also agree that fiat currency is more liquid than commodity-based currency.

However, I think "I'm not Spartacus" is right that a fiat currency can only be instituted through immoral means, and I also think that the efficiencies and savings of a fiat currency are simply not worth the risk of inflation: an ideal fiat currency might be better for the poor, but not any fiat currency that we would actually find in the real world.

All that said, the defense of fiat currency strikes me as uptopian, but so too does making it an issue in the 2008 presidential race, as Paul's supporters seem to want to do. The federal government is far too large, has indeed run roughshod over the Constitution, and much of it needs to be dismantled, but the goal of cutting the beast back down to size is (unfortunately) really politically unpopular and is a guaranteed loser at this point. Since it would result in the ascendency of a socialist (Hillary or Obama), it would be counterproductive.

In my opinion, the most economically libertarian policy position that is even remotely viable in the national political arena is the Fair Tax. Let's see if we can get that passed, then let's tackle unconstitutional spending and the Fed.

kathleen said...

"To be certain, I myself support a commodity-based currency."

For this to become a viable issue, people have to be persuaded that the dollar will soon/can soon become worthless. Given recent events in FOREX, that might happen "sooner rather than later". In the meantime, protecting one's own wealth through investing in commodities/precious metals is not a bad idea.

Anonymous said...

The Blackadder Says:

I'm inclined to the Friedman view that a commodity based standard, while it has many advantages, is currently unrealistic as no government is willing to give up the control over monetary policy that such a standard would involve.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0399b.asp

Anonymous said...

"Zippy is fighting a valiant battle for sanity..."

Well, that's a first.

Anonymous said...

My, my. It seems there are an awful lot of partial Ron Paul fans here at the Coalition. I wonder: are we really given a choice between on the one hand cheering Ron Paul's foreign policy while loathing his domestic policy like the Great and Powerful Zipp and on the other cheering his domestic policy while loathing his foreign policy like the denizens of Vic the Impaler's journal? Is there no where for someone who thinks Ron Paul is a kook across the board to hang his hat?

Susan B. said...

Is there no where for someone who thinks Ron Paul is a kook across the board to hang his hat?

Well, I don't know if this helps, but I think he's a total kook.

Speaking of the Paulbots, I find this post hilarious because it draws an apt comparison between the the rhetoric of the Raul Paul types and another group of kooks altogether.

Susan B. said...

Gah...that's Ron Paul...sorry!

Joseph D'Hippolito said...

My, my. It seems there are an awful lot of partial Ron Paul fans here at the Coalition. I wonder: are we really given a choice between on the one hand cheering Ron Paul's foreign policy while loathing his domestic policy like the Great and Powerful Zipp and on the other cheering his domestic policy while loathing his foreign policy like the denizens of Vic the Impaler's journal? Is there no where for someone who thinks Ron Paul is a kook across the board to hang his hat?

Say, "anonymous," is your name Ben Yachov (Jim Scott IV)?

I suppose you don't have the testicles to answer that, but I just had to ask.

theenquirer said...

Has Comerford perpetrated some black ops on this site?

Anonymous said...

No. The Jade Emperor, Zipp Huang Shangdi, has decreed that Victor be sent as a foreign movie correspondent to Buranda, which lacks an Internet connection, and Torq be redeployed to Antarctica.

Joseph D'Hippolito said...

And now for something completely different....

"God does not exist," intones Christopher Hitchens.

"Yes I do," whines Mark Shea, fists clenched and feet stomping, "IdoIdoIdoIdoIdoIdoIdo..."

Joseph D'Hippolito said...

BTW, can we get The Jade Emperor to redeploy Mark Shea to the Hindu-Kush region of Pakistan? After all, al-Sheada has been one of "them" for some time now.... ;)

Phillip said...

"Hey Son! I contacted Kaiser Permanente there in LA with your IP. I expect you will be hearing from your supervisor soon!"
Mark Shea

This from a recent thread. It looks like Shea is not using to internet to report people he disagrees with to their bosses.

Phillip said...

That should read, "...is now using..."

Anonymous said...

Hey Son! I contacted Kaiser Permanente there in LA with your IP. I expect you will be hearing from your supervisor soon!"

You are kidding me!!!! Tht is so low, so immoral, so EVIL.

Please, please provide a link. This I have got to see!

Diane

Phillip said...

Diane,

I am technically challanged so am not sure how to do it. If you go to Mark's blog and look at Sept. 11th posts. Its in the comments section for "Spineless Evil Party" post of 10:20 am.

Pauli said...

It's here.

Well, the person calls Mark a disgrace and claims to be his son. So it is a fairly rude comment which he is responding to. Maybe Mark just claimed to have contacted the supervisor. I don't think that white lies "make you stupid".

If he actually did... well, the amount of time to leave the comment was probably less than it takes to check stocks. I doubt the supervisor will do anything but shrug.

Evil and immoral are a little strong, IMHO. But is it a scare tactic worthy of "bronze age thugs" or the rubber hose right? That's the real question.

Anonymous said...

I dunno...I just have strong feelings about people's jobs being endangered. I went through a layoff myself about 10 years ago, and it stank. I have friends who were recently laid off; they're devastated. it's just so horrible to lose one's job. I'm sure Mark could not seriously jeopardize that person's job (over one teeny comment), but just the idea that he would *try* utterly repels and disgusts me. It is beyond thuggish; it is heartless. And what if the person did get called on the carpet by his supervisor? Ugh!!!! The poor person should have to go through that, simply because he made one boorish comment on a forum that seems to brim with boorish comments, mst of them made by Mark himself??

Sure, the person's comment was rude, but, as I say, it seems pretty par for the course for that board. In another thread, I notice, one of Mark's pals repeatedly calls a dissenter an "illiterate buffoon"...and Mark doesn't so much as peep about that. If you're a Friend of Mark, I guess, you can pretty much get away with anything.

In any case, I am in shock that Mark would actually contact someone's boss. In my book, that really *is* evil--especially in this day and age, when layoffs are a near daily occurrence and people are losing their houses left and right.

Creeeeeeeepy!!!!

Diane

Phillip said...

"Sure, the person's comment was rude, but, as I say, it seems pretty par for the course for that board. In another thread, I notice, one of Mark's pals repeatedly calls a dissenter an "illiterate buffoon"...and Mark doesn't so much as peep about that."

Agree. Don't know what the "Son of Mark Shea" was trying to say with that tag, but given the number of highly insulting comments on his blog especially from the man himself, Mark ought to be much more of a grown-up. He could have easily banned or deleted the comment as he routinely does. But when you threaten another person's job, that's overboard considering what passes for discourse in his living room. For example, remember the "coordinating menstral cycles" line?

Anonymous said...

Mark wasn't serious. Unless he has uber hax0r skillz he's never shown the world (and which would likely land him in jail if he used), there is no way in hell that he knows who the commenter's boss is from an IP address.

Phillip said...

Cool. Like I say, I'm not technologically sophisticated. Maybe Mark is being sarcastic. Maybe he is just being threatening. Can Mark know that a guy works for Kaiser in LA from an IP address?

Anonymous said...

Yes. Now that I've read the email, I think that I see what he meant: he claimed to have sent a message to someone (a customer support call center, etc) and expects them to pursue the matter, find out who the guy is, where he works, and sick his boss on him. If he really did that, I agree: it's outrageous considering that he himself has done much worse (as, ahem, have more than one person here; heck, I'm sure I have). Even if he did, I doubt it will go anywhere.

Anonymous said...

Now that I've read the email

Comment, not email, comment.

Phillip said...

Oh well, just got banned again at Mark's for pointing out his comment. I think this is the fifth time. This must be a record.

Anonymous said...

LOL...don't feel bad. It's a badge of honor.

I don't think I've been banned yet. But, when I dared to post that I don't see what the big huge deal is about Harry Potter (one way or 'tother) and I sure don't see why Christians should tear each other to pieces over a bunch of dumb children's books, my comments were summarily deleted. WTF?? ;)

Diane

P.S. I would say that the fact you got banned must mean that Mark was quite serious...he really did contact that commenter's employer. Oy!!

Well, if Mark didn;t do so--if his seemingly deranged comment was just some sort if cruyptic in-joke--then I think he should say so. Seriously!

Diane

(BTW, glad I'm anonymous here...Mark can't trace my workplace. LOL!)

Anonymous said...

Is there such a word as "commenter," BTW? MSWord keeps flagging it as a boo-boo. But somehow "commentator" doesn't seem like the right word...it smacks of Talking Head.

Just an off-topic momentary digression....

Diane

Anonymous said...

oops, typo alert (I'm on a roll)...that should be "cryptic," obviously, not "cruyptic."

Diane

Joseph D'Hippolito said...

Friends and colleagues, Mark is certainly capable morally of hunting down somebody's boss and complaining about a comment that the employee made. Remember, he stalked me for five years around Catholic blogdom starting flame wars designed to get me banned (many of which I was stupid enough to fall into). He also supported a write-in campaign to David Horowitz's Front Page Magazine, asking the editors to prevent me from writing for them.

Yes, he apologized publicly (and snarkily) on his blog right before Lent for harassing me but it seems he's found other targets.

Mark is more than a delinquent or a bully. He's a man with delusions of grandeur. He thinks he can stop people who disagree with him publicly by harassing them or threatening their livelihoods.

This is a man in need of serious spiritual and psychological counseling, and should be avoided at all costs.

Pauli said...

Diane: "If you're a Friend of Mark, I guess, you can pretty much get away with anything."

Maybe that explains why Mark has avoided responding to this.

Pauli said...

Philip et al, it is sometimes possible to track down an employer via an IP address. This is because companies lease a range of public IP addresses, and it's a matter of public record just like who owns a tract of land.

For example, I determined that an anonymous commenter on my blog who claimed to be someone he wasn't worked for a large firm in Michigan. This gave me a minor power rush. But it might give someone else a bigger rush if they had a stalking personality.

Furthermore, I've found that even just Googling these IPs can yield interesting results. It can literally show you what the person has been up to -- again, sometimes -- (e.g., Wikipedia stores & publishes IPs of people who modify entries.) So the moral is be careful what you do on the net from work.

Phillip said...

Rather sad. The Church has enough scandals. It doesn't need a "Catholic" apologist winding up in trouble for internet stalking.

Phillip said...

"The Devil, the Proud Spirit, Cannot Endure to be Mocked - St. Thomas More"

This is one of Mark's post for today. I wonder why so many are banned or stalked for mocking his follies?

kathleen said...

I noticed that too. Mockery is not something Shea is able to tolerate in the slightest, indeed he seems to think anyone who mocks *him* is a son (or in my case daughter) of Satan (or "witch queen of angmar", same difference).