If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSN Autos)   U.S. empire in decline? The descent from Solomon to Robocop   ( yellowtimes.org) divider line
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

5137 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Feb 2002 at 11:11 AM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

136 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

2002-02-18 12:29:44 PM  
Of Course Afghani women work, they worked in the fields and in the home.

The Taleban were against women being professionals not against them working per se.
2002-02-18 12:32:37 PM  
wasn't the whole point of this "war" to catch OBL? didn't King George label him an "evil-doer"? well, if so, why are we going off to Iraq?
2002-02-18 12:34:21 PM  
"Of Course Afghani women work, they worked in the fields and in the home.

The Taleban were against women being professionals not against them working per se."

you're not defending the Taleban are you? In a country where most of the men wind up dead long before their wives, that leaves a lot of women on strett - an I don't mean walking.
2002-02-18 12:36:52 PM  

That's what most American hating chimps say, anyway.
2002-02-18 12:37:45 PM  
Fb-: WTF?
2002-02-18 12:52:52 PM  
Nice article. No liberal bias here on Fark. No way.
2002-02-18 12:55:08 PM  
What a load of crap. I'd bother to refute it in more detail but, in the end, why use pretty words to describe a pile of shiat when what it really comes down to is, it's shiat.

Yes, the U.S. has gone downhill since the 60s, since before that, even. Thank you for that, liberals.
2002-02-18 12:57:17 PM  
No, FarkU_UFarkingFark, the author directly compares the Cuban Missle Crisis with the current war on terror. It's the first main tennant of his article.

He ALMOST makes a good point when he asks how the political leaders of the Kennedy administration would react if they were in power today; but then he undermines his entire argument by using current events to attempt to portray the moral fiber of our government as being different from that of the 1960's. The problem is that you can't compare the two situations, and therefore the moral underpinnings of the administrations.

The author then abandones his original point to simply engage in some baseless, general, government bashing. He uses a 90% number (an approval rating, I guess) to insinuate that ALL of America supports every platform of the current administration. News Flash - I approve of the job that President Bush is doing, but I don't aggree with all of his platforms.

Then, the author insinuates that cults, extreemists, radicals, and even terrorists are the only people with any moral fortitude. That's just silly - what about all of the men and women all over the world protesting peacefully, working through the proper channels of government to affect change?

Lewandowski is so lacking in intelligence that he actually creates an intelligence vacum. When I read his article, it sucked some intelligence right out of me. Hence, I am now dumber for having read this article.
2002-02-18 12:57:23 PM  
The new movers and shakers are not content to slap flag decals on their SUVs.
I've seen a ton of lamers Slap flag Stickers on their SUV's.
But this story is pretty whacked.
2002-02-18 01:05:19 PM  

See Central America, 70s-80s re: American trained and financed death squads targeting only "political figures".

Odietamo: If you had your way, I suppose 8 year olds would still be working in sweat shops, the typical workweek for laborers would be 6 days/60+ hours, etc? Or would you have been a liberal back when that all changed? Damn that "progress"!
2002-02-18 01:18:13 PM  
Your hyperbole is the height of ridiculous, as usual, Benway.
2002-02-18 01:21:03 PM  
Come to think of it, I will add a short two cents regarding this pile of dung.

In spite of their personal ambitions, these two politicians were apparently held back by pangs of conscience - what we sometimes call principles.

What a sermon. How touching. I almost want to weep.

As usual, liberals have this funny way of distorting reality to their own needs. KENNEDY authorized the Bay of Pigs which helped incite the Crisis to begin with. More important, the U.S. knew WELL in advance of the Crisis that Cuba was about to have a nuclear arsenal. Intel reports showed for months the silos were being built. Kennedy ALLOWED IT TO GET TO the point of a crisis. Had he handled the situation when he first heard of it, the crisis, and the potential loss of American lives, wouldn't have happened. He wasn't a hero because of the Crisis. He was a liberal fool trying to clean up the mess he had allowed to happen.
2002-02-18 01:21:15 PM  
I inflicted on myself the pain of reading this entire piece, in hopes that somewhere in it would be the author's own solution to the problems he identifies. Alas, my effort was wasted, for all I found was criticism and no suggested course of action, beyond an (implied) admonition to 'mature' (whatever that may mean) and abandon our present foreign policy. Essays like this are worse than useless; they convey the sense that there are other courses of action without the necessity of having to say what they are.

One question: was this guy writing this sort of critique when we were in Bosnia? I can't bring myself to try to find the answer, as it would involve slogging through even more of his writings, and I think I did my duty in reading the present piece.
2002-02-18 01:34:21 PM  
which hyperbole would that be, Odi?
2002-02-18 01:36:24 PM  
[image from blort.meepzorp.com too old to be available]
2002-02-18 01:38:51 PM  
[image from bunnieswithcarrots.com too old to be available]
2002-02-18 01:38:57 PM  
Still reading...
2002-02-18 01:42:13 PM  
mmmmmmmmmmm whales. I could go for some blowhole pie or blubber stew right about now...
2002-02-18 02:01:19 PM  
I know we had troups in Vietnam while Kennedy was in office, but the build up that we align with the Vietnam conflict came as a result of LBJ... just one of the many problems in the article.
Also, he doesn't bother to mention that the Bush's work is exacerbated by eight years of Clinton Pacifism, just like Kennedy's "peacenik" attitudes that he was so praised for.
2002-02-18 02:05:34 PM  
As I have finally come to learn Benway, my explaining to you won't you make the choice not to know, won't help.
2002-02-18 02:07:46 PM  
Wow. That made no sense. Let me try that again.
As I have finally come to learn Benway, my explaining to you that which you make the choice not to know, won't help.
2002-02-18 02:25:00 PM  
The usual anti-Israel crap, with the standard factual errors (Dean Rusk, not Dean Acheson; the Shah was in Iran, not Iraq).

Like that story the other day of the Muslim pilgrims who beat the Afghan Travel Minister to death: we think we are dealing with people schooled in the U.S. Constitution. No such luck. Only Israel understands what their enemy is about. Israel offered 98% of the West Bank to the Palestinans, with the other 2% to be made up from other Israeli territory. The Palestinians refused.

You have to live with your enemy to know him.
2002-02-18 02:30:51 PM  
DrBenway - I agree that that is the answer: we can complain about the downfall being the fault of liberals, but without those people, we wouldn't have had the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act; National Environmantal Policy Act; OSHA; and all the rest of those creators of bureacracies that somehow have managed to keep your employer, landlord; sheriff, etc. from discriminating against and/or killing you.
2002-02-18 02:31:59 PM  
It is quite interesting that the so called conservatives as a rule seem to never read an article in its entirity before they go off on rants in this forum whereas the liberal-minded ones take the time to read the article and carefully consider what was written --just an observation. I think this says a lot about the people who represent these views (liberals tend to be --in general --more critically-minded and considerate whereas conservatives tend to be more ideological and less willing to consider alternate information.

Anyway, it seems to me that the author is not saying that nothing should be done to "stabilize" certain regimes, he is just stating that the US has no principled response on stabilization --that it is quite adhoc and not well thought-out. This does not mean that there should not be such responses rather it means that the US should develop some policy in this area. Seems reasonable to me.

Just my 2 cents.
2002-02-18 02:35:01 PM  
translation: it's easier to just post a message than it is to think about what it means and be able to defend it. If you're going to accuse me of ridiculous hyperbole, be prepared to support yourself with a coherent argument. I think a lot of people are finding your hiding behind the "i'd refute[/defend/explain] something I said, but I can't be bothered" excuse to be a pretty tired act.
2002-02-18 02:38:12 PM  
That guy is an idiot

and worse, he's a democrat

does he not read...those 9/11 bastards started the plan more than a year and ½ earlier.
Clinton's time in office

dumba$$ farkhead
2002-02-18 02:38:38 PM  
Still reading...

Aww screw it, I'll wait for the movie.
2002-02-18 02:41:30 PM  
Thank you, Anotherlawyer. That is very much my point. At what point on the timeline does the conservative mark where progressivism/liberalism has made what they can agree was an important and positive difference? You've just come closer to the present day than I did with your examples.
2002-02-18 02:43:54 PM  
Anotherlawyer, liberals had their place and time. In their day they were quite benefical, I agree. Now they do more harm than good, a cause out of control.

I do, however, laregly agree with your 2:25 post.

TheWiseOneso called conservatives as a rule seem to never read an article
Since I'm lumped in this category usually, I'll address it. I suffered through that baseless nonsense in its entirety.

he is just stating that
I have no idea what article you were reading to conclude that.

I'll try to leave my opinion at what I have already posted. The author wrote a lot but was clear about nothing except his belief that Kennedy was a hero and conservatives are soulless devils. All that was accomplished was to continue to misrepresent the details of the Crisis in a liberal light. Enough said. Shortly Benway's little liberal clique will arrive and utilize their beloved win-through-volume approach.
2002-02-18 02:48:37 PM  
That is like, so cool! I have my own clique!
2002-02-18 02:50:21 PM  
I believe the word you were trying to use was "benefecal"?
2002-02-18 02:57:22 PM  
Gee as much as the Libs b&m about the U.S. not having a pat Text-Book Answer™ to every foreign policy problem, I'm surprised one of the Wise Ones isn't developing a flow-chart for every concievable situation that can occur in the world right now!
2002-02-18 03:24:06 PM  
Benway: I never claimed otherwise. US-trained "death squads" didn't go around blowing up civilians to express their anger and frustration, though.

Similar point: If Palestinians only targeted the Israeli military, maybe I would bother trying to see their point and understand their position. But they deliberately blow up pizza shops and rescue-workers. Absurd as it is, armed conflicts are supposed to have rules (if you believe in the notion of "war crimes", you implicitly accept that idea as fact). Break those rules and you have a terrorist action. Just the way it works. Personally, I think it's ridiculous -- I favor the "by any means necessary" approach -- but those rules are there so we don't all act like complete barbarians. Although I'm sure my favorite ultra-leftists already believe that all Americans/Westerners/non-"oppressed" peoples are barabarians.
2002-02-18 03:29:11 PM  
Sorry, ahould have said deliberately break those rules. There have been very few conflicts where there have not been civilian casualties of some sort. But by-and-large, I would suggest that most of them have been accidents. Rounding up an ethnic group and executing them is, of course, a different story.....

(U.S. bombs hitting hospitals and such fall into a gray area. It's sometimes hard to believe those errors are accidental, but tactically they really make no sense and are a waste of resources. Bad intelligence [double agents?] and bad technology [Microsoft products?] are probably to blame.)
2002-02-18 03:31:31 PM  
I must really say that the writhing in the artical was true about only 10% of americans think for themself when i read the comments here.
American trained and financed death squads are targeting farmers in colombia right now
2002-02-18 03:33:24 PM  
US-trained "death squads" didn't go around blowing up civilians to express their anger and frustration, though.

right. they dragged them out in the middle of the night and shot them. a little torture here, a little rape there...
2002-02-18 03:42:05 PM  
The U.S. funds people who do bad things. TRUE. That means we have no right to try and stop other people from funding other people who do even worse things. FALSE.

Just as: I have violated some speeding laws in the U.S. TRUE. That means I have no right to become a police officer and enforce laws that prohibit murder. FALSE.
2002-02-18 03:45:41 PM  
If any single article stands as proof of the necessity for a 'flamebait' tag, this is the one.

Look at you guys, at each other's throats. It's only politics.
2002-02-18 03:51:56 PM  
I hope no one is arguing that point, Shuh. However, your example is, I suspect, considerably more black and white than the actual reality, in terms of bad vs. worse. I'm inclined to think there are much finer shades of grade in this case. If there was, in reality, as much difference as in your example, we wouldn't have as much of a problem defending our actions as we often seem to do.
2002-02-18 04:03:49 PM  
"shades of gray", that is...
2002-02-18 04:06:28 PM  
DrBenway, if we are having such a hard time "defending" our actions, why haven't the people of the United States jumped up in revolt to make the U.S. as righteous as the rest of the world wants us to be? Answer: because you're talking baloney.
2002-02-18 04:08:03 PM  
Shuh What you are describing is called hypocracy, and your comparison is over simplistic of the actual issue. You are pretty much using a type of Chewbacca defense arguement (from south park).
2002-02-18 04:10:42 PM  
Code: so if that's your definition of "hypocracy," you must have some non-hypocrits who are "qualified" to make these kinds of decisions and implement these kinds of actions. The question to you is: "Who are they?" No answer to that, then just shut up.
2002-02-18 04:18:32 PM  
I'm not sure I understand what you just posted, Shuh -- can you try to clarify it for me, please? Not sure how you're getting from point A ("if...") to point B ("why...").
2002-02-18 04:18:55 PM  
Two undisputed facts:

1. America has the best system of govermnent in the history of mankind.

2. Liberals are only happy when they can complain about what other people do.
2002-02-18 04:36:02 PM  

I'm thinking that's up there in "Odietamo class" for stupidity, Hoosier. Mainly your second point. The funny thing about your first point, though, is this: If our system of government is so great (and it certainly has its many fine points to be sure), why is that conservatives (since we're throwing everyone into big boxes) biatch and moan so much about it all the time? "Oh, I don't mean THOSE parts..."
2002-02-18 04:38:06 PM  
My email to this idiot (long)
1.) Comparing Bush to JFK is apples to oranges. JFK was a great man. The Bush empire is not.

2.) Either I'm one in ten, or your conscience as a child never taught you to not make generalizations. I find your 90% math fairly assinine and insulting, more to your intelligence that you think that we'd think that statement made you in the slightest bit credible. Your article was ok until then. 90% of Americans don't drink bud, genius. (That's called being facetious btw, that means when someone says something, they're not entirely serious but are making a point)

... I was going to put some long thing in here about how lame your generalizations are, I kept going back to your article and addressing points from paraphraphs, but there's so much I felt I should sum. I bet you call yourself a journalist. Or a reporter. Or employed by informing the people of "news". You sir, sound like Brian Gumble, reading off a sheet of paper in front of him, handed down by managers who were handed papers by executives, who were handed papers by the powers that be. I call it broken record reporting. I pretty much lost all respect for you, and I'm fairly ashamed I gave your site a hit at this point because you sound like an asshole (not meant as an insult, I use funnier names for namecalling). You say the poor afghani people suffer at the behest of our bombs as we fight a government we armed. Gee you're a master of the obvious aren't you. So you imply by this (obviously you're an expert in the matter as you think you're capable of informing all the poor dolts who read this article) that it'd be better for Afghanistan to be like Chechnya? Oh wait, both are blasted empty countries after warring with the Russians. Oh wait you mean Afghanistan gets to be rebuilt because it's not under the control of Russia? Oh wait you mean they have a reasonable government in which their country can be rebuilt with the aid of the US, the UN, and our allies? Oh jesus no! WE'RE COMMITTING CRIMES IN AFGHANISTAN BY SETTING THEM FREE. All over what? 500 peasants? Man, people die in war. Usually tens and hundreds of thousands. In crusades times, the Europeans would have started a genocide. You think we're wrong by going there? You also think 90% of Americans give a shiat about the Bill Clinton blowjob? 90% of us drink Bud? 90% of us don't realize Isreali's and Palestinians will be cutting each others throats for another 3000 years whatever the current excuse is? 90% of us think the White House connection to Enron is innocent? 90% of us don't realize our taxes go to other countries for ill or GAIN (gee how much aid do we give other countries that isn't in the form of Stinger missiles, I don't see this in your math anywhere)? 90% of us are calloused at the calling of our troops to kill and be killed? (this is a rhetorical question based on the absurdity of 90% being even jokingly serious)

I can't quite say I agree with your statements and the goal you put forth with them. You sound like yet another Joe Schmoe media clown spewing the same fluff handed down from Ted Turner, White House aides, and all the other plastic faced empty souled husks of puppetry that think 90% of Americans can't see through their bullshiat.

Do 90% of us think you're entirely off your rocker? Do 90% of us think you lost any credibility you had by generalizing us and banging on your righteous drum of Screw The Americans? Are 90% of us capable of finding words to say how stupid all that sounded?

Even if I'm only 1 in that 90%, I would say so.

Learn to be a professional. Don't hide behind the flickering white of your text editor, your FrontPage2000 HTML composer, and your broken record statements. Go into the field and taste the bitter dirt and pain the poor saps you're glorifying saying we're wrong for being who we are. BLU-82's may not say we're always right, but all the help we do give to unfortunate people explicity says we're not always wrong. Go learn and be worldly before you do these people injustice by categorizing them as you've categorized Americans.

Oh yeah, and Bud sucks. :)

I may not be attend church, but god bless America. If only for the freedom she gives to allow people like you, to print the lies you put in front of other peoples eyes. Our freedoms say your message may be wrong, but your right is to spread it. It's up for the people (90%!) to decide whether or not you're full of it.
2002-02-18 04:42:26 PM  
DrBenway, elementary Dear doctor. If hypocrisy automatically disqualifies any argument, then please elucidate what argument can be made without it? Particularly when discussing the comings and goings and doings of nations...

In other words: "If my solution is wrong because it contains X, please show how the solution is realistically possible without X, or just stop jerking everyone's chain and shut up."
2002-02-18 04:43:05 PM  
Regarding Hawkifann's assessment of the Bush administration's handling of this whole thing so far:
I think they're doing about as well as can be expected.
I agree. I had extremely low expectations, and I was right.
2002-02-18 04:44:52 PM  
Oh yeah, and Fb- and Martin29;

You guys made my day lol. These are Americans I'm proud to be countrymen with.

I feel like a steak, a lapdance, an Alaskan Pale ale (not all our beers sucks, just what you find in the econo boxes for $6.99).

BTW; The commies never had The Simpsons. What kind of so called "superpower" were they?!
Displayed 50 of 136 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.