Comments Posted By chris
Displaying 161 To 170 Of 204 Comments
THE GREAT MIDDLE EARTH MELTDOWN
That was not an RPG, that was a guided anti-tank missile, which miraculously destroyed only the front of the armored limo. Man, they sure do make those things tough these days, don't they?
I love how totally this show has gone off the rails. The only reason I watch it is so I can thoroughly enjoy your (and Jeff Kouba's) commentary on it. Lead on, MacDuff.
Comment Posted By Chris On 28.02.2006 @ 11:24
Rick, I fail to see how anything can be taken to the woodshed by someone whose own arguments you rebut. This is the same Fukuyama that interpreted the fall of Communism wrongly, along with most of the foreign policy and intelligence establishments. This smacks of splitting differences in order to claim that one was on the winning side all along.
The highlighted arguments from you and Joyner seem to me to be wishful thinking of a particularly wistful bent. Most of Fukuyama's suggestions are impractical at best, and counterproductive to boot. Our "unilateral" foreign policy has stripped away the veneer that clung to the world stage throughout the 90s. We know who our true allies are, and what institutions we may place our faith in. We are also beginning to flush our enemies out into the open, i.e. Putin in Russia.
I found Fukuyama's arguments to be Monday morning quarterbacking of a most obvious sort. As Joyner pointed out, criticizing past events is not a policy alternative.
Comment Posted By Chris On 20.02.2006 @ 11:19
The UN report falls into the category of a bad joke. The commission refused to visit because they would not be allowed to interview detainees. In the light of Lynne Stewart passing information from her terrorist client, this one is a no-brainer. The Red Cross has and is monitoring the conditions at Gitmo and has not complained of abuse or mistreatment of detainees.
I read the National Journal article (or a synopsis, I wasn't sure which) and, frankly, I don't care who these people are and who picked them up. In a shadow war with stateless terrorists, there will be large areas of gray. The government has decided to detain these people, for whatever reason. Maybe it's a favor for Pakistan in order to keep them happy and helping. Or maybe these guys were caught leaving the sinking ship. Too bad. This is like rounding up a bunch of wolves after your sheep have been attacked. Are all of the wolves the actual attackers? Does it really matter? Those wolves won't be attacking anything.
This whole issue boils down to appearances. A lot of people just don't like that we are operating an open-ended detention center for purported enemies of the U.S. Again, too bad. SShiel gets to the gist of it. We had these guys, and we had to do something with them. That something is Gitmo. Now that they're there, there really are only those choices about what to do with them.
Comment Posted By Chris On 19.02.2006 @ 06:40
We were brought down by the sheer load of someone deciding to "mirror" the mohammed cartoon site.. Once we discovered the source we had to make the tough decision to block access to the images.. especially as I am sure the user did not intend to a) harm the server and b) actually swallow up the entire network card with the traffic and transfer 30GBs in a few hours.
We are constantly being attacked for the sites we host but hey.. sometimes its fun to watch the attack logs scroll as they fail ot deface sites or gain access.
Comment Posted By Chris On 16.02.2006 @ 16:48
A SLAVISH DEVOTION TO SUPERFICIALITY
Rick,
Great post. Guys like Greenwald are definitely suffering from BDS coupled with a bit of blogger envy. "Who are these upstart (spit) bloggers (spit) and why does anybody pay attention to them?"Republican=Conservative=Lockstep. Most definitely. Just look at the Harriett Miers example, or better yet the debate on immigration. No dissent is brooked, don'cha know?
Comment Posted By Chris On 12.02.2006 @ 22:12
Offering a truce is a sign of weakness. The Umma is allowed to take a respite from jihad by offering a temporary truce, which will be revoked at the earliest convenience. I believe there is a time limit of ten years, maximum.
Comment Posted By Chris On 20.01.2006 @ 09:47
Dan appears to have never heard of videotape. He also appears to be brain-dead.
Comment Posted By Chris On 13.01.2006 @ 15:04
MORE TWISTED INTEL FROM THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
I have a friend who is a Vietnam veteran. His theory is that the real intelligence work is done by NSA, DIA, etc. and that the CIA is only a front, explicitly designed to distract attention away from the other groups by behaving stupidly. I have to admit that the evidence seems to bear this out.
Comment Posted By Chris On 7.01.2006 @ 09:14
The Old Testament prophets would not have recognized Pat Robertson, because he does not speak with the authority of God. They would have recognized him for what he is, a man putting words in God's mouth.
Pat Robertson is a fringe figure, even in the evangelical community. I haven't heard any of the Christians I know say anything at all about him. Ever. That's how influential he is in the circles I travel in.
BTW, I am a fundamentalist. I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible (in it's original languages). I am also a scientist. My children attend public schools, and I have yet to infiltrate the library and burn everything on humanism and evolution. I would never vote for a religious leader for any elected office. That is not their calling. Pat Robertson's credentials for political punditry are questionable at best. When was the last time he said anything rational or useful having to do with politics? He makes a convenient straw man for secularists, and that's it.
Comment Posted By Chris On 6.01.2006 @ 14:39
THE LAW OF INTENDED CONSEQUENCES
Here comes the irony. By making it more difficult for the administration to prosecute people in this country, this increases the likelihood that at some point, the legal niceties will cease to be considered, and dangerous people will just disappear.
BTW, I believe this outcome to be far more likely under a liberal government than a conservative one, as liberals tend to favor the end over the means.
Comment Posted By Chris On 30.12.2005 @ 09:05
