১১ ফেব্রুয়ারী, ২০১৮
What are the cheers of the North Korean cheerleaders?
WaPo translates 3 cheers: 1. "Go team," 2. "Nice to meet you," and 3. "My home town."
I also heard someone on NBC-TV explaining that one of the cheers — when the women's hockey team was losing terribly (8-0) — was "Cheer up." That makes cheerleading so literal.
এতে সদস্যতা:
মন্তব্যগুলি পোস্ট করুন (Atom)
পোস্টগুলি
২১৪টি মন্তব্য:
«সবচেয়ে পুরাতন ‹পুরাতন 214 এর 201 – থেকে 214J. Farmer said...
@Achilles:
100% garbage and you know it. You are too smart not to know what South Korea would look like if the US had not intervened.
I am smart enough to know that that question is unknowable and any claims to "know" are bullshit.
This is a bad faith argument. No point in continuing a discussion if you are going to hold that line.
Don't be like them. Don't trash the motivations of honest people who fight for freedom.
Whose motivations have I trashed?
This entire thread you have been arguing people are attacking the media unfairly and calling them warmongers/interventionists.
The press is obviously anti-american and you side with them when this supports your anti-interventionist stance.
We are never going to agree on the proper role of good people in response to evil. I believe good people need to fight just as hard as evil people do or evil people win. You disagree. Fine.
So is it "evil" for an absolute monarchy to destroy and starve its neighbor and oppress political enemies through torture, arbitrary imprisonment, and summary executions, while simultaneously funding and arming radical salafi jihadists to wage guerrilla war campaigns? If so, when does the bombing of Riyadh begin?
This is another bad faith argument and a shitty strawman. Your position here is unless we start an all out war against every country that does bad things everywhere we can't do anything at all.
You are calling the people that fight for freedom hypocrites.
If we made the same commitment in Iraq that we made in Germany/Japan/Korea I believe after a generation we would have had a reasonably thriving nation like South Korea.
So after just a generation, which would be around 25-30 years, of continued military occupation, the Kurds would no longer want a separate state, and the tribal differences between the east of the country and the west will be settled, and then representative democracy will work just fine. Though I guess Iraq, being a majority Shia country, would still be in Iran's orbit. I just think that is absolute fantasy.
Nothing wrong with a separate Kurdish state. The way things were going in 2009/10 it was entirely reasonable to expect that. Particularly if the Iranian regime had fallen in 2009. Minimal effort and the Iranian people would have been free of the Ayatollahs.
And weren't you not so long enough telling me that Afghanistan was an easily winnable war once the rules of engagement were loosened? And yet, a year into Trump's administration, with those rules loosened and with additional troops, victory is no more in sight than it was before. Not only is the Tablian active in over 75% of the country, it has recently been able to pull off large scale attacks that have gotten hundreds of people killed, including in one of the most fortified and secure areas of Kabul.
People like you cited the Tet Offensive as a great american defeat. It was dishonest. And now? Ooh the Taliban attacked people. Welp! Time to pack up and go home! Game over man! Game over!
The Taliban are a joke. Afghanistan is a joke. I agree it makes no sense to be there. The people in charge have no serious intention of winning and in Afghanistan who can even tell what winning would be. There isn't even really a strategic goal there.
I will say that cutting money to Pakistan will do more to fight the taliban than killing a bunch of illiterate sodomites hiding in mud huts. Child rape is pretty much the Afghan national sport. The whole country is a hole. I feel really bad for the women and the children. The only thing that would help the country is taking out a good percentage of military age males.
@Achilles:
This is a bad faith argument. No point in continuing a discussion if you are going to hold that line.
Counterfactual history can be a good mental exercise, but it's mostly useless since it's arguments are unfalsifiable.
This entire thread you have been arguing people are attacking the media unfairly and calling them warmongers/interventionists.
I never called anyone a "warmonger," and I only used the word "interventionist" once and that was to describe an argument, not a person. And I also never said that anyone was "attacking the media unfairly." I said that the coverage largely meaningless and would not have a discernible impact on the relations between the relative powers. I also wrote in one of my first comments,
The press is obviously anti-american and you side with them when this supports your anti-interventionist stance.
There is no monolithic "press" to side with or not side with. In one of my first comments on this thread, I wrote, "Plus, if people are watching news television for any reason other than entertainment, they're already in deep trouble." You can call that siding with the press if you like. Here's a little secret: I say what I think is correct and what I think is incorrect. The source does not matter. If CNN says something I agree with, I say it. The validity of the argument is what matters, not whose mouth it comes out of or on what paper it is written.
This is another bad faith argument and a shitty strawman.
You wrote, "We are never going to agree on the proper role of good people in response to evil." Presuming you consider yourself a good person, do you consider the Saudi regime evil? If so, what is the proper role of good people to it?
The way things were going in 2009/10 it was entirely reasonable to expect that. Particularly if the Iranian regime had fallen in 2009. Minimal effort and the Iranian people would have been free of the Ayatollahs.
The Green Movement's primary demands was the installation of Mir-Hossein Mousavi as president, as they believed he rightfully won against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Mousavi became the nominal leader of the Green Movement, and the goal was never the removal of the Ayataollah. Mousavi, while a reformist politician, was and remains a supporter of the Islamic State. He was prime minister of Iran in the 1980s and was an advisor to Khatami in the late 90s and early 2000s.
"The press is obviously anti-american...."
What does this common and stupid label even mean, "anti-American?"
"'They propagate propaganda, of course, as everyone does, and their propaganda serves the interests of America's ruling elites.' I take it this was MayBee's point. But Cook, exactly who are these "elites"? Does it include, say, the president and vice-president?"
Of course not! The politicians in Washington, including the President and Vice-President, are the servants of the ruling elites. They are the wealthy interests who influence and are served by American policy: the energy interests, the corporate interests, the financial interests...what Eisenhower called the "military-industrial complex," but greatly expanded.
As General Smedley Butler said decades ago:
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
"Nuclear weapons are primarily a defensive weapon."
Tell that to the Japanese.
And to preempt(!)your rejoinder that you claimed "primaritly" I'll just add..
They are until they aren't.
How many times in history have "Primarily defensive weapons" been used offensively?
More than quite a few. And I might point out that since nuclear weapons aren't seen by the owner as a method of denying an enemy a battle space in the owners own territory, they are to be deployed to destroy and enemy in his territory.
J. Farmer Except North Korea poses no significant threat to "the nation and our culture."
I grew up in Hawaii, directly across the bay from Marine Corps Base Hawaii. My family still lives there.
Go fuck yourself.
This isn't important because it moves the needle or not on war.
It's important because of what it does to the American psyche, to see the press en masse praise and whitewash a brutal regime. We see them at work, trying to cute-if something that is not cute. Will they succeed in getting people to *like* them? Is it good for us to like them?
It also tells us something about the press- what they are willing to do when they hate a US president. How bold they feel about trying to create a false impression right out in the open.
Or more succinctly: if the press are willing to blatantly report like this on a known tyrant/torturer, how can we trust them on domestic politics?
Anybody think we can?
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift
Not to say that J. Farmer is a genius, but he is manifestly the most rational and considered commenter here, as is confirmed by the dogged persistence with which he is impotently set upon by this blog's drove of dunces.
Aw!
Robert Cook thinks that Smug is swell.
I cannot understand why anybody gives the time of day to an old communist. All the communists wanted to do was exercise power and dominion over others, killing until there was no resistance. That is what Robert Cook wants to do.
Similarly, arguing with Smug is a waste. Mock him and move on. He entertains no opinion but his own. Do him the same courtesy.
@Rusty:
And I might point out that since nuclear weapons aren't seen by the owner as a method of denying an enemy a battle space in the owners own territory, they are to be deployed to destroy and enemy in his territory.
Your remark about the Japanese only makes sense because the US was the only country in the world to possess such weapons. That is no longer the case. Again, if you believe that nuclear deterrence cannot work with North Korea, you have to explain why conventional military deterrence has worked. In other words, the North Koreans won't risk starting a conventional war but they would start a nuclear war, which would end in their utter destruction?
@Jason:
I grew up in Hawaii, directly across the bay from Marine Corps Base Hawaii. My family still lives there.
Go fuck yourself.
The Chinese have had nuclear weapons for decades. Were you or your family ever worried about a nuclear attack from China? Why not?
@MayBee:
It's important because of what it does to the American psyche, to see the press en masse praise and whitewash a brutal regime
Can you give a single example of the press praising the regime?
@Birkel:
Similarly, arguing with Smug is a waste. Mock him and move on. He entertains no opinion but his own. Do him the same courtesy.
It's amazing how I find the strength to carry on, being mocked by an anonymous comment troll after all. But Birkel obviously craves some level of attention that mommy and daddy did not provide. I am happy to oblige.
@MayBee:
It's important because of what it does to the American psyche, to see the press en masse praise and whitewash a brutal regime
Can you give a single example of the press praising the regime?
They are all throughout this post, and Althouse has one at the top of the blog.
CNN had this:
http://www.cnn.com/2018/02/10/asia/kim-sister-olympics/index.html?sr=twCNN021018kim-sister-olympics1126AMVODtop
CNN
✔
@CNN
Kim Jong Un's sister is stealing the show at the Winter Olympics http://cnn.it/2nW0eKA
That article starts like this:
(CNN)If "diplomatic dance" were an event at the Winter Olympics, Kim Jong Un's younger sister would be favored to win gold.
With a smile, a handshake and a warm message in South Korea's presidential guest book, Kim Yo Jong has struck a chord with the public just one day into the PyeongChang Games.
Kim Jong Un invites President Moon to N. Korea
Kim Jong Un invites President Moon to N. Korea 01:10
"I hope Pyongyang and Seoul get closer in our people's hearts and move forward the future of prosperous unification," she said in her guest book message, referring to the capitals of North and South Korea.
Seen by some as her brother's answer to American first daughter Ivanka Trump, Kim, 30, is not only a powerful member of Kim Jong Un's kitchen cabinet but also a foil to the perception of North Korea as antiquated and militaristic.
Now, it goes on to say they are a brutal regime. But the opening and the tweeted headline are nothing but complimentary.
Praising the cheerleaders is also praising the regime. Softening the regime. Pretending they are charming rather than terrifying.
"Your remark about the Japanese only makes sense because the US was the only country in the world to possess such weapons. That is no longer the case. Again, if you believe that nuclear deterrence cannot work with North Korea, you have to explain why conventional military deterrence has worked. In other words, the North Koreans won't risk starting a conventional war but they would start a nuclear war, which would end in their utter destruction?"
That wasn't the argument. Leave the goalposts where they were.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন