Juan: You state that the UK, France, etc, would "have done this" without the US. That's extremely unlikely given the level of military integration within NATO.
Also, Kosovo should not be used as a model. First, Kosovo was not just a NFZ but an actual air war. Second, that alone did little to determine the outcome. The game changer was the resolve to send ground troops (and Russia telling Milosevic they wouldn't help if that happened). I do not see any parallel with Libya.
I am uncomfortable with this juxtaposition. Raw hatred and bigotry meeting defensiveness and affirmations of American greatness. Yikes. When black people are called "monkeys" in European stadiums, should we have videos of black people explaining to us patiently they are biologically part of the human species? When Jews are called blood suckers, should we have prominent Jews record promotional tapes informing the public that Jews do not actually drink blood?
I don't think so. So all these Muslims in the video tell us they are true-blue Americans who love their country and think it is great. Cool! But as Americans shouldn't they be allowed to dislike America, too? Or would that play into the hands of the bigots? I am sorry but I don't want American Muslims to feel the need to remind us they're "good" Americans. The answer to bigotry is to call people out on their bigotry and punish them: it is not for the victims to have to justify why the bigotry is uncalled for.
Not to take anything away from Balbo, but I believe the Brits pioneered aerial bombing of civilian populations in the 20s. The idea of dropping chemical bombs from planes popped out of Churchill's giant humanitarian brain.
Or maybe Gaddafi is learning from the masters of Shock-and-Awe, which, if memory serves, killed more people in Baghdad than were killed on 9/11.
That "Can't face the revolution cuz it's raining" video, is that Gaddafi's audition tape for the next SNL?
MG beat me to it. The army today showed worrisome duplicity. The protesters have to force the army to take sides or they will lose. I know, it's easy for me to say this. I am not the one risking my life. But I am very worried that time is not on the side of the protesters.
Obama's playing the same role as the army: deceiving words about the need for change to placate the public, while having Wisner reassure the army that a few cosmetic changes will be enough to keep their $1.5b allowance.
Only quibble is Stewart's concern that if we use superlatives to describe how horrible our own politicians are, here in the US, then we'll have no adjectives left to talk about Ahmadinejad and the evil ayatollahs.
I loathe these characters and you can call them anything you want, but is Stewart saying that they are worse than Bush and Co? Seriously, Bush has the blood, not of hundreds of people on his hands, like Ahmadinejad, but of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
By which moral calculus is Bush morally superior to Ahmadinejad? Or is it simply because he is "one of us," and hence enjoys a headstart on the moral lane.
In his last speech, Obama turned into a preacher, quoting liberally from Scripture. His speeches are often peppered with biblical references. I don't see that as practicing civil religion at all but, rather, appealing to Judeo-Christian tradition. Not exactly a practice inclusive of Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. Why does he get a pass?
>> some 44% oppose the war! And, 56% of Americans think the war is going badly.
Small rhetorical nitpick... Let me rewrite this sentence in an equivalent manner: "Some 44% (of Republicans) oppose the war! And 44% of Americans do not think the war is going badly."
In the first case you want us to be impressed by how big the number 44 is in context A. In the second case you want us to be impressed by how small 44 is in context B.
Trouble is, it's hard to think of a number as being both big and small regardless of context. No doubt you'll say that context is everything: 44 is a big number among Republicans and a small one among all Americans. But why? Because Republicans support the war. But that's consistent with the number 44 so your first use of 44 adds nothing of value unless we know the changes and certainly cannot by itself be regarded as either big or small.
Again, as I said, just a nitpick. Overall point is interesting.
Sorry for being a bit of a nag here, but you're answering the wrong question. The debate is not whether secularism is a force for evil but whether religion is a force for good. (These are not complementary propositions.) Secularism is not on trial here: religion is. So to rebut Prof. Cole's argument, you need to show that he has not argued successfully that Stalin would not have behaved worse had he been religious. But since Stalin was close to being the ultimate monster, Prof. Cole is almost certainly correct. In other words, this is not a line of reasoning you're likely to win.
That the Crusaders did evil things in the name of religion does not by itself contradict the proposition that religion is a force for good. What if the Crusaders had done much worse things without religion? The history of conquest is that religion is usually not needed for it. Napoleon didn't need religion to invade the Middle East: he only needed the evil Brits. So again my point is, yes, perhaps religion is not a force for good. But no one who disagrees with Prof. Cole here has even begun to make that case.
Raed: >> While secular tyrants have inflicted much death and suffering, secularism itself is not at fault (I hope we agree).
Perhaps, but you have no argument. Like Karamazov, some will say that "If God doesn't exist, everything is permitted." For your point to hold, therefore, you need to show that, had they been religious, Hitler, Stalin, et co, would not have been more restrained. Or you can show that, without Christianity, the Enlightenment would have happened anyway (few scholars would agree). Or that the Saudis would be better behaved without Islam, etc. If you don't address these issues, you have no point.
Watson: >> I have the right to believe that 2 + 2 = 5, but I don’t have the right to be chair of the math department.
Wrong. 2+2=4 is not just true but normatively so. In fact, you have no right to believe 2+2=5. You may choose to do so, but a right entails the freedom to do so without retribution. But society will punish you if you believe 2+2=5. For example, try and take the SAT and see how colleges will admit you.
And how does outsourcing IT jobs to India create jobs in the US? It simply does not. It helps create a vacuum in the labor force between the highly skilled and the unskilled. Or so say Blinder and Reich. And both teach Macro 101...
India rising... Yes, but let's not get carried away. The GDP of India is still below Spain's by a good chunk. China's is 3 times India's. India's extreme poverty is growing, despite all the IT hype, which is a minuscule part of India's economy.
That said, the surest way for India to remain a minnow on the larger geopolitical scene is to cling to Kashmir. Just as Kissinger had dreams of a perpetual Iraq-Iran war, I can assure you that Hu Jintao dreams of a Kashmir conflict going on forever: the quickest way to make India an also-ran. So to all those Indian nationalists who see all of Asia through the prism of Kashmir, I say "enjoy the view and get used to your 3rd world status because, with that attitude, you're going to be stuck with it for a long, long time"
Juan: You state that the UK, France, etc, would "have done this" without the US. That's extremely unlikely given the level of military integration within NATO.
Also, Kosovo should not be used as a model. First, Kosovo was not just a NFZ but an actual air war. Second, that alone did little to determine the outcome. The game changer was the resolve to send ground troops (and Russia telling Milosevic they wouldn't help if that happened). I do not see any parallel with Libya.
I am uncomfortable with this juxtaposition. Raw hatred and bigotry meeting defensiveness and affirmations of American greatness. Yikes. When black people are called "monkeys" in European stadiums, should we have videos of black people explaining to us patiently they are biologically part of the human species? When Jews are called blood suckers, should we have prominent Jews record promotional tapes informing the public that Jews do not actually drink blood?
I don't think so. So all these Muslims in the video tell us they are true-blue Americans who love their country and think it is great. Cool! But as Americans shouldn't they be allowed to dislike America, too? Or would that play into the hands of the bigots? I am sorry but I don't want American Muslims to feel the need to remind us they're "good" Americans. The answer to bigotry is to call people out on their bigotry and punish them: it is not for the victims to have to justify why the bigotry is uncalled for.
Not to take anything away from Balbo, but I believe the Brits pioneered aerial bombing of civilian populations in the 20s. The idea of dropping chemical bombs from planes popped out of Churchill's giant humanitarian brain.
Or maybe Gaddafi is learning from the masters of Shock-and-Awe, which, if memory serves, killed more people in Baghdad than were killed on 9/11.
That "Can't face the revolution cuz it's raining" video, is that Gaddafi's audition tape for the next SNL?
MG beat me to it. The army today showed worrisome duplicity. The protesters have to force the army to take sides or they will lose. I know, it's easy for me to say this. I am not the one risking my life. But I am very worried that time is not on the side of the protesters.
Obama's playing the same role as the army: deceiving words about the need for change to placate the public, while having Wisner reassure the army that a few cosmetic changes will be enough to keep their $1.5b allowance.
I hope I am wrong because this is sickening.
They are great!
Only quibble is Stewart's concern that if we use superlatives to describe how horrible our own politicians are, here in the US, then we'll have no adjectives left to talk about Ahmadinejad and the evil ayatollahs.
I loathe these characters and you can call them anything you want, but is Stewart saying that they are worse than Bush and Co? Seriously, Bush has the blood, not of hundreds of people on his hands, like Ahmadinejad, but of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
By which moral calculus is Bush morally superior to Ahmadinejad? Or is it simply because he is "one of us," and hence enjoys a headstart on the moral lane.
In his last speech, Obama turned into a preacher, quoting liberally from Scripture. His speeches are often peppered with biblical references. I don't see that as practicing civil religion at all but, rather, appealing to Judeo-Christian tradition. Not exactly a practice inclusive of Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. Why does he get a pass?
>> some 44% oppose the war! And, 56% of Americans think the war is going badly.
Small rhetorical nitpick... Let me rewrite this sentence in an equivalent manner: "Some 44% (of Republicans) oppose the war! And 44% of Americans do not think the war is going badly."
In the first case you want us to be impressed by how big the number 44 is in context A. In the second case you want us to be impressed by how small 44 is in context B.
Trouble is, it's hard to think of a number as being both big and small regardless of context. No doubt you'll say that context is everything: 44 is a big number among Republicans and a small one among all Americans. But why? Because Republicans support the war. But that's consistent with the number 44 so your first use of 44 adds nothing of value unless we know the changes and certainly cannot by itself be regarded as either big or small.
Again, as I said, just a nitpick. Overall point is interesting.
Sorry for being a bit of a nag here, but you're answering the wrong question. The debate is not whether secularism is a force for evil but whether religion is a force for good. (These are not complementary propositions.) Secularism is not on trial here: religion is. So to rebut Prof. Cole's argument, you need to show that he has not argued successfully that Stalin would not have behaved worse had he been religious. But since Stalin was close to being the ultimate monster, Prof. Cole is almost certainly correct. In other words, this is not a line of reasoning you're likely to win.
That the Crusaders did evil things in the name of religion does not by itself contradict the proposition that religion is a force for good. What if the Crusaders had done much worse things without religion? The history of conquest is that religion is usually not needed for it. Napoleon didn't need religion to invade the Middle East: he only needed the evil Brits. So again my point is, yes, perhaps religion is not a force for good. But no one who disagrees with Prof. Cole here has even begun to make that case.
Raed: >> While secular tyrants have inflicted much death and suffering, secularism itself is not at fault (I hope we agree).
Perhaps, but you have no argument. Like Karamazov, some will say that "If God doesn't exist, everything is permitted." For your point to hold, therefore, you need to show that, had they been religious, Hitler, Stalin, et co, would not have been more restrained. Or you can show that, without Christianity, the Enlightenment would have happened anyway (few scholars would agree). Or that the Saudis would be better behaved without Islam, etc. If you don't address these issues, you have no point.
Watson: >> I have the right to believe that 2 + 2 = 5, but I don’t have the right to be chair of the math department.
Wrong. 2+2=4 is not just true but normatively so. In fact, you have no right to believe 2+2=5. You may choose to do so, but a right entails the freedom to do so without retribution. But society will punish you if you believe 2+2=5. For example, try and take the SAT and see how colleges will admit you.
And how does outsourcing IT jobs to India create jobs in the US? It simply does not. It helps create a vacuum in the labor force between the highly skilled and the unskilled. Or so say Blinder and Reich. And both teach Macro 101...
India rising... Yes, but let's not get carried away. The GDP of India is still below Spain's by a good chunk. China's is 3 times India's. India's extreme poverty is growing, despite all the IT hype, which is a minuscule part of India's economy.
That said, the surest way for India to remain a minnow on the larger geopolitical scene is to cling to Kashmir. Just as Kissinger had dreams of a perpetual Iraq-Iran war, I can assure you that Hu Jintao dreams of a Kashmir conflict going on forever: the quickest way to make India an also-ran. So to all those Indian nationalists who see all of Asia through the prism of Kashmir, I say "enjoy the view and get used to your 3rd world status because, with that attitude, you're going to be stuck with it for a long, long time"