tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13052170.post111979050658992374..comments2024-01-25T05:09:32.384-06:00Comments on Dodecahedron: Shape of the Universe: Iraq Didn't Make The ListHoratiohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03149189923124941205noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13052170.post-1120223386561523152005-07-01T08:09:00.000-05:002005-07-01T08:09:00.000-05:00Hail Eris!I think the error you may be making (asi...Hail Eris!<BR/><BR/>I think the error you may be making (aside from dropping that pesky preposition, "to", in "not be";-{)}) is in assuming that, on some level, your leaders conceived of the War On Terror as anything but a con from the start, and are actually interested in fighting it. As Brzezinski said (OK, I may be paraphrasing. Shaddap.), a "war on terror" is an absurdity, like, as you say, a war on tomato soup, and while your Fearless Leader may think it's genuine, Rove, Cheney and the gang know damn well better than that -- and they're the ones in charge. Terrorists and cops are going to be battling it out until the end of humanity, or the end of the universe, if not the end of all universes (if such a thing is even possible -- the omniverse may well be truly eternal), and no imposition of order/negative entropy is ever going to fail to cause an equivalent escalation of disorder/entropy.<BR/><BR/>SnarkyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13052170.post-1120155790310772362005-06-30T13:23:00.000-05:002005-06-30T13:23:00.000-05:00Fair enough, he might indeed have been quaking in ...Fair enough, he might indeed have been quaking in his boots. But my point was that I didn't particularly care about Saddam's reaction, whatever it was.Horatiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03149189923124941205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13052170.post-1120141572474928912005-06-30T09:26:00.000-05:002005-06-30T09:26:00.000-05:00I actually doubt Saddam let out a chuckle when 9/1...I actually doubt Saddam let out a chuckle when 9/11<BR/>happened. He probably thought "oh ***, the Yanks,<BR/>who've bombed me every day since 1991 are coming<BR/>over here SOMEWHERE to kick someone's ass. I hope<BR/>to Allah it ain't me". <BR/><BR/>Did he think "hahaha, the Americans have been <BR/>crushed. Now they will leave Iraq and I can once <BR/>again consolidate my power in the No Fly Zones"?<BR/>No way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13052170.post-1119930088519381822005-06-27T22:41:00.000-05:002005-06-27T22:41:00.000-05:00I've enjoyed reading your blog the past couple day...I've enjoyed reading your blog the past couple days. I have to say, though, I'm starting to feel a bit confused about my own politics, you make some good points. For some reason I believed the Bush administration up until the last 6 months or so. I think I have to blame it on pregnancy hormones or something, because I'm starting to get the feeling that I was just blindly HOPING it would all work out. Now I find myself listening to the talk radio that I used to love and thinking "what the heck am I listening to this for?" It seems so hateful and one sided. I can't just change sides though, can I?marriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11595181244628469096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13052170.post-1119840837222370612005-06-26T21:53:00.000-05:002005-06-26T21:53:00.000-05:00Oops. Good call on the typo. Thanks for the comm...Oops. Good call on the typo. Thanks for the comment. The feeling I had the first time I heard Iraq mentioned as a possible target was almost the same as when Bud Selig said he was going to disband the Minnesota Twins. Originally I heard Bud talk about "contraction" and basically thought it was a good idea. I figured they'd get rid of the Expos and the Devil Rays, two awful franchises with terrible stadiums and no fan base to speak of. But then all of a sudden we're talking about the Twins and I'm like "what are you THINKING!?!?!" The twins are good, the Twins win, the Twins draw, the Twins have a long and proud tradition. And before you knew it, contraction was the worst idea anyone had ever heard of.Horatiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03149189923124941205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13052170.post-1119838006559540472005-06-26T21:06:00.000-05:002005-06-26T21:06:00.000-05:00While I disagree with your use of the word "taked"...While I disagree with your use of the word "taked" I have to agree with the rest of it, vociferously, particularly that last paragraph. I remember the entire run-up to the Iraq war in a kind of slow motion - a sort of "what the hell is going on here" sinking feeling, as if a really powerful opportunity to address and attack the fact of terrorism and the causes of terrorism, in a bizarre and completely irrational rush to war. It was accepted as a kind of fait accompli. And when I marched against the war, it was an expression of that bewilderment. I only wish the rest of the marchers had expressed those concerns. But apparently the 9/11 tragedy affected them, too, because they were so dazed that "no blood for oil" was the best they/we could come up with.<BR/><BR/>Clifford May at the Corner criticized Ted Kennedy for saying we should focus on al Qaeda instead of Iraq. May said -- DUH Kennedy, Iraq is the one place in the world where al Qaeda is killing people on a daily basis. <BR/><BR/>Cliff, have you noticed that the terrorists seem to be multiplying faster than we can kill them (or than they can kill themselves, as the case may be)? We've tried evacuating and ransacking villages, staging elections, torture, de facto martial law, and having meetings with the terrorists. And yet they still grow stronger by the week. At what point does "staying the course" become a strategy worthy of reconsideration?Jonathan Kelleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16166009893791396533noreply@blogger.com