i feel bad pointing out weird personal ticks, but, christian, if you're reading this: quit saying 'you know' at the end of your sentences. you're a smart guy and many of the things you say i actually don't know. simply becoming aware of your tick help to correct them. Practice by listening to your recordings and you'll be on your way to a tick-free diavlog, you know?

I never started caring about "you know" until Kennedy got called on it. Now I try to avoid it. I hold extemporaneous talk to a pretty low standard, even pro writers who don't do go on TV often make all kinds these mistakes. As you said, it just takes being aware of it and some practice to get rid of it.

Quoting sealrock: i feel bad pointing out weird personal ticks, but, christian, if you're reading this: quit saying 'you know' at the end of your sentences. you're a smart guy and many of the things you say i actually don't know. simply becoming aware of your tick help to correct them. Practice by listening to your recordings and you'll be on your way to a tick-free diavlog, you know?

Perhaps he's, ya know, taking a page out of, um, our, uh, ya know, President's, um, rhetorical style?

When Obama loses two wars and halves the value of the nation as your ilk did than we will think about listening to your criticism. If you want some realism your side is a bunch of total failures and incompetents that is what is real.

Spencer is great. His blog has been a favorite of mine for sometime. I love that he seeks out disagreements and debates them honestly and without hostility. Christian was a great match up for him. I know that Spencer loves his boy Eli, but it's nice to hear the realist perspective come from the right and not the neocon. There's a lot of agreement to be had between the realist right and the neorealist left. Christian is a facts on the ground type of guy and that's refreshing. Too often we're forced to listen to Pinkerton, Lake, and Frum who while smart live by an ideology that got us into two failed wars. I just added Christian's blog to my reader. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/185...2:51&out=53:29 Latin America has become less democratic over the last eight years? How can you look at the indigenous majority of Bolivia electing a government that represents them for the first time and say that's a loss for democracy? How can you look at the recent election in El Salvador that lead to a change in parties for the first time and say that's a loss for democracy? And Bush supporting democracy? Is that what Brose calls supporting oligarchical secessionist movements and military coups?

China is corrupting Africa in order to secure access to raw materials for its factories. Hillary and Obama decide to downplay human rights, fearing the Chinese gov will otherwise stop funding the democrat party's mega deficits. With the cold hearted, cowardly approach to foreign affairs favored by democrats, why should the minority republicans care? The red state US military did its good deed in Iraq and received few thanks and recognition. Not sure what the alternative is, but the status quo sucks. -Steve

The decline of the US from "the world's sole remaining superpower" to "zombie power" in a few short years can be discussed using macro level indicators such as Chinese communist government holdings of US government bonds, Russian foreign policy adventurism due to oil wealth, depletion of US military power as a result of over extension of US forces around the world, the bleeding of resources as a result of the Iraq and Afgan wars and finally the Israeli lobby control of Middle East policy due to ... you know what! A micro level analysis reveals the extent to which "clients" of US power have turned into masters of US foreign policy. The tail is wagging the dog ... and the superpower is now a zombie power and it does not know that it is dead! 1. Turkey, Iraq and the Kurds Notwithstanding US tacit support, for over 60 years, for Turkish cultural genocide of its ethnic Kurdish minority, Turkey refused to allow US forces to use Turkish territory to invade Iraq. No US retaliation for this insolent behavior. 2. Turkey and the Armenian Resolution Armenian resolution almost destroyed decades long alliance between Turkey and US. American politicians can be bought for a political

Quoting DenvilleSteve: The red state US military did its good deed in Iraq and received few thanks and recognition.

There was a lot dumb with your post but I'm going to focus on your very special brand of bizarro demographics. The Heritage Foundation says 64.2% of military recruits came from blue states.

Quoting pampl: There was a lot dumb with your post but I'm going to focus on your very special brand of bizarro demographics. The Heritage Foundation says 64.2% of military recruits came from blue states.

Damn pampl, why are you citing those commies at Heritage? There must be a good hard-working red-state source, somewhere... Actually I don't think "DenvilleSteve" is a real person at all. I think a better theory is that we're dealing with a kind of ELIZA bot responding from a short script of Freeper-friendly catchphrases.

Pampl, there you go with those silly facts again. Re thanks: I'm sure once the people of Iraq are able to move back to their country and/or have their heads re-attached to their bodies, and/or return from their babies' funerals, all the "thank you" cards will start arriving in droves.

Quoting pampl: There was a lot dumb with your post but I'm going to focus on your very special brand of bizarro demographics. The Heritage Foundation says 64.2% of military recruits came from blue states.

I think you are mistaken if you think those who join the military from blue state represent a cross section of those states. Look at the names and photos of the police and firemen who died in the WTC on 9/11. A large number of them were Irish and Italian Catholics. this wapo article reports and bemoans the red state tilt of the US military: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121401815.html "...A 2005 Heritage Foundation analysis of Defense Department and census data on enlistments found that Montana, Alaska, Florida, Wyoming, Maine and Texas send the most young people per capita to the military. The states with the lowest contribution rates? Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey and New York. ..."

Quoting AemJeff: I think a better theory is that we're dealing with a kind of ELIZA bot responding from a short script of Freeper-friendly catchphrases.

When I first saw this I laughed, but based on his last non-responsive response (blah blah police and firemen who died in the WTC on 9/11 blah blah), it actually seems eerily plausible.

I do the same thing with "uhm" and "you know." I suppose it's a filler until I get my next thought going and out of my mouth. Admittedly, it doesn't sound good though. John

Quoting Stapler Malone: When I first saw this I laughed, but based on his last non-responsive response (blah blah police and firemen who died in the WTC on 9/11 blah blah), it actually seems eerily plausible.

I dont follow. How was I not responsive? The wapo article addresses the overrepresentation of red state citizens in the military. The tone of the article is actually one of concern that now that the democrats control the country, they need a military more populated from their ranks.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: The red state US military did its good deed in Iraq and received few thanks and recognition.

-Steve

I wouldn't call the murder of 1.3 million people a good deed.

People aren't murdered in war, they're killed. 1.3 million killed seems a stretch as well.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I dont follow. How was I not responsive? The wapo article addresses the overrepresentation of red state citizens in the military. The tone of the article is actually one of concern that now that the democrats control the country, they need a military more populated from their ranks.

You originally called it the "red state military" but your response was about firefighters and policemen, an unsubstantiated and likely false claim about how representative volunteers are, and a non sequitor about per-capita volunteering. Most chat bots at least can work the subject into their response.

Quoting Lyle: People aren't murdered in war, they're killed. 1.3 million killed seems a stretch as well.

Call it what you want to, but calling the Iraq War a good deed is repulsive. And the 1.3 million comes from extrapolating from the Lancet study. http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html

The Lancet study is considered to be wrong by most people, from what I've read. I also don't think removing Saddam Hussein from power is repulsive. Ipso facto it was a good deed, since he was so awful. War is repulsive, but sometimes war is the only way to solve a problem, i.e., often it brings peace or freedom.

Quoting Lyle: The Lancet study is considered to be wrong by most people, from what I've read.

I also don't think removing Saddam Hussein from power is repulsive. Ipso facto it was a good deed, since he was so awful. War is repulsive, but sometimes war is the only way to solve a problem, i.e., often it brings peace or freedom.

Just so we're clear, how many dead is the cutoff point? 1 million? 2 million? 10 million? 20 million? How much is whatever freedom they've got worth? Give us a number.

Quoting Lyle: The Lancet study is considered to be wrong by most people, from what I've read.

If by most people you mean people who want to make it look like the death toll of the war is lower than it is, than yeah.

I also don't think removing Saddam Hussein from power is repulsive. Ipso facto it was a good deed, since he was so awful. War is repulsive, but sometimes war is the only way to solve a problem, i.e., often it brings peace or freedom.

If we wanted Saddam out of power, then we wouldn't have supported him up until the first Gulf War. If we wanted Saddam out of power, we wouldn't have imposed a sanction regime that empowered his government by making the people of Iraq dependent on them for their material needs. If we wanted to set up an imperial outpost in the Middle East and try to impose the most neoliberal economic policies on the country, then we would have invaded the country, killing 1.3 million people to date. And that's what we did, even if it didn't end up working out quite like we thought it would

No, I don't have a number. The war in Iraq hasn't reached WWII numbers though, so whatever this arbitrary number might be we probably haven't crossed it yet.

No, the Lancet study has been roundly criticized by even anti-war academics. ... and just because we supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War doesn't mean we couldn't not support him later. In fact, such an argument gives even greater support to going to war against him because we helped to support him. So if he was a problem we helped to cause, it was our responsibility to do something about him. You simply don't leave spilled milk on the floor without cleaning it up.

Quoting Lyle: No, the Lancet study has been roundly criticized by even anti-war academics.

... and just because we supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War doesn't mean we couldn't not support him later. In fact, such an argument gives even greater support to going to war against him because we helped to support him. So if he was a problem we helped to cause, it was our responsibility to do something about him. You simply don't leave spilled milk on the floor without cleaning it up.

Well if unspecified anti-war academics say so... You have completely missed my point. We didn't change our policy towards Saddam because we suddenly realized what a monster he was, we changed our policy because he became a threat to our interests. We didn't lift a finger when he was gassing the Kurds in northern Iraq, we just kept sending him aid money. Our invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with humanitarian concerns. And anyway, even after we turned against Saddam, we still pursued policies that empowered him. If we actually cared about helping the people of Iraq, we would have dropped the economic sanctions.

Quoting Lyle: No, I don't have a number. The war in Iraq hasn't reached WWII numbers though, so whatever this arbitrary number might be we probably haven't crossed it yet.

Population of Iraq: 25-28 million
WW2 killed: 50-70 million Also, it shouldn't be up to America to decide how many dead Iraqis are worth what kind of society they have.

Yeah, that's entirely true... but having supported him in the past isn't a reason we couldn't remove him from power. Our interests changed, and now he's dead because of it. We didn't really care Germany was butchering Jews, Gypsies, and Homosexuals, but we put a stop to it. So the positive consequences that flow from a war we rage, we get to claim. Iraq is free of Saddam Hussein and they have the hope for something better, and all thanks to the United States of America, rather we meant it or not.

Quoting Lyle: Yeah, that's entirely true... but having supported him in the past isn't a reason we couldn't remove him from power. Our interests changed, and now he's dead because of it. We didn't really care Germany was butchering Jews, Gypsies, and Homosexuals, but we put a stop to it. So the positive consequences that flow from a war we rage, we get to claim. Iraq is free of Saddam Hussein and they have the hope for something better, and all thanks to the United States of America, rather we meant it or not.

(emph. added) Freudian slip of the week.

Quoting Lyle: Yeah, that's entirely true... but having supported him in the past isn't a reason we couldn't remove him from power. Our interests changed, and now he's dead because of it. We didn't really care Germany was butchering Jews, Gypsies, and Homosexuals, but we put a stop to it. So the positive consequences that flow from a war we rage, we get to claim. Iraq is free of Saddam Hussein and they have the hope for something better, and all thanks to the United States of America, rather we meant it or not.

Iraqi's are worse off as a result of the war. If we wanted to improve their lives, then we should have lifted the sanctions. Saddam would have been out of power eventually and 1.3 million people would still be alive. But we didn't want to improve Iraqi's lives, we wanted to expand our domination over the world.

I disagree. The Iraqi people are not worse off, but better off. They no longer live under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and they have the opportunity to construct a better Iraq for themselves, which was never a possibility under Saddam Hussein. There is also no evidence to suggest that Saddam Hussein's regime was going to end anytime soon. Castro is still in power, Kim Jung-Il continues to carry on his father's legacy, Mubarak in Egypt is still in power, as are most of the other individual or familial despots around the world (especially in the Middle East region).

Quoting Lyle: I disagree. The Iraqi people are not worse off, but better off. They no longer live under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and they have the opportunity to construct a better Iraq for themselves, which was never a possibility under Saddam Hussein.

The death rate is higher than before the invasion, people have less access to basic needs like clean water and electricity, and the people of Iraq don't even have the ability to control whether or not they are occupied by foreign troops. By nearly any metric, they are worse off now than they were before the United States destroyed their country, unsurprisingly.

There is also no evidence to suggest that Saddam Hussein's regime was going to end anytime soon. Castro is still in power, Kim Jung-Il continues to carry on his father's legacy, Mubarak in Egypt is still in power, as are most of the other individual or familial despots around the world (especially in the Middle East region).

Saddam probably would have been tossed out long ago if we hadn't been propping him up. Regardless, the invasion was illegal and terrible if you care anything at

You should go easy on Lyle. He's pretty bright for 13 year old.

Lyle at GOPAC. And a Child Shall Lead Them…
By Bob Ellis on March 1st, 2009

Isn’t it amazing that a 13-year old can grasp truths that many 30 or 50 year old liberals cannot begin to fathom?

Lyle, author of “Define Conservatism” is 13 years old, and the video below is a clip of him speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

“Conservatism is not about the party, because the party’s merely the shell. It’s the inside, it’s the filling that really means something,” said Lyle.

He said that in his book he defined conservatism as based on four principles:

Respect for the constitution
Respect for life
Less government
Personal responsibility
(You know, that essentially sums it up)

He said principle itself is the key to conservatism, because if you don’t have principles, you do not have policy, if you do not have policies, and if you do not have policies, in many ways you do not have an ideology.

He said while some ideologies hinge on power, power over others, conservatism hinges on principle.

If only the brain trust running Washington D.C. and many government institutions throughout America could be half as insightful as this 13-year-old…

Quoting graz: If only the brain trust running Washington D.C. and many government institutions throughout America could be half as insightful as this 13-year-old…

Is this a joke? A fiction? Then reality surpasses fiction. Let's face it: many Republicans---80%?---are no more intelligent than 13-year-old Lyle. Probably even less intelligent when you consider that they have been repeating the same profound truths for 30 years.

Not to let reality and facts intrude on your partisan position but even Time magazine has noticed that Basra's Back in Business.

Quoting piscivorous: Not to let reality and facts intrude on your partisan position but even Time magazine has noticed that Basra's Back in Business.

Nice photo Pisc. Not much of argument, though.

Quoting piscivorous: Not to let reality and facts intrude on your partisan position but even Time magazine has noticed that Basra's Back in Business.

It's good to know of progress in Iraq. Hopefully it is a sign or trend - the jury is still out. But even spectacular progress doesn't win the original argument for you now or ever. Even if you weren't a military man yourself, I know you understand the cost of war. The Iraqi part of the calculus is simply disregarded if you are still attempting to justify the war. I don't expect acknowledgment of that opinion. But a little humility and context would add some credibility to your case.

It isn't though, because the elected government in Iraq does not want us to leave quite yet. They're the decision makers not us.

Quoting Lyle: It isn't though, because the elected government in Iraq does not want us to leave quite yet. They're the decision makers not us.

The elected Iraqi government wants us out, that's what the Status of Forces Agreement was about. Obama has different ideas. The people of Iraq want us out even faster, and they're the ones who should be deciding.

I think they have set a tentative deadline for coalition forces to leave. They don't want us to leave at this very moment though. They want our help right now and at least in the short term. The Iraqi people have made their decision because it was they who elected the Iraqi government. By the way, the only reason there is an elected Iraqi government, and the Iraqi people elected it, is because the United States liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein and occupied Iraq allowing for a democratic society to form. Yay democracy! Yay Freedom! Yay Iraq! Yay America!

Quoting Lyle: I think they have set a tentative deadline for coalition forces to leave. They don't want us to leave at this very moment though. They want our help right now and at least in the short term. The Iraqi people have made their decision because it was they who elected the Iraqi government.

By the way, the only reason there is an elected Iraqi government, and the Iraqi people elected it, is because the United States liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein and occupied Iraq allowing for a democratic society to form. Yay democracy! Yay Freedom! Yay Iraq! Yay America!

Maliki might not want the United States to leave because they are keeping him in power. The Iraqi people have wanted the US out forever, poll after poll has shown this. It was only massive pressure that got Maliki to push for the timetable in the SOFO agreement to begin with. And actually, it was agitation on the part of Iraqi's that got elections held. The Bush administration didn't want to do it.

I disagree. Polls don't mean anything, elections do. Of course the Iraqi people don't want to be occupied, it's culturally humiliating. However, they also realize the United States and Allies are trying to help them out. They are not in a position to let us leave at the moment, but yes, eventually, they do want us out, and when that time comes it comes, it just isn't right now.

Quoting Lyle: I disagree. Polls don't mean anything, elections do. Of course the Iraqi people don't want to be occupied, it's culturally humiliating. However, they also realize the United States and Allies are trying to help them out. They are not in a position to let us leave at the moment, but yes, eventually, they do want us out, and when that time comes it comes, it just isn't right now.

If elections don't elect governments that don't enact what is the clear will of the people, then there's something wrong with the elections. And it isn't just humiliating, it's deadly. It's killed 1.3 million of them. They clearly want us out now, but Obama, just like Bush, doesn't look like he's planning to leave anytime soon.

Ah... the Iraqi people voted. If they made a mistake, then they can vote differently the next go round. Polls do not mean a thing in a democracy. They're not even accurate at times. You're just going to have to wait until the Iraqi government and people desire an end to the occupation. 1.3 million people have not been killed either. That's a fiction. The Lancet Study is bunk.

Quoting Lyle:
1.3 million people have not been killed either. That's a fiction. The Lancet Study is bunk.

If not 1.3m, how many?

Something less than 1.3 million. Iraq Body Count claims 90,000-100,000 civilians have been killed since 2003. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Quoting Lyle: Ah... the Iraqi people voted. If they made a mistake, then they can vote differently the next go round. Polls do not mean a thing in a democracy. They're not even accurate at times.

You're just going to have to wait until the Iraqi government and people desire an end to the occupation.

An individual poll may be wrong, but we're talking about many polls over a long period of time. You will not find a serious analyst who disagrees with the claims that the Iraqi people want the United States out of Iraq. And again, if elections don't match the will of the people, it's the elections that are at fault, not the public.

1.3 million people have not been killed either. That's a fiction. The Lancet Study is bunk.

Glad we cleared that up, then.

I think you need to understand that Democracies aren't run or moved by polls. Polls do not matter. No elected official is accountable to a poll. They're accountable to voters. And yes, as I said before, the Iraqi people want us out of Iraq... just not at this very moment. One day though, one day. They're also glad the United States of American overthrew Saddam Hussein. There's lots of polls on that too. Yay America! Hi-five George W. Bush!

Quoting graz: It's good to know of progress in Iraq. Hopefully it is a sign or trend - the jury is still out.

But even spectacular progress doesn't win the original argument for you now or ever. Even if you weren't a military man yourself, I know you understand the cost of war. The Iraqi part of the calculus is simply disregarded if you are still attempting to justify the war. I don't expect acknowledgment of that opinion. But a little humility and context would add some credibility to your case.

The original argument was won in 2003, when the majority of American's populace supported going into Iraq, a fact that is conveniently forgotten or deliberately ignored in the meme that it was a mistake to remove the beast Saddam. Yes as things deteriorated so did the support level but there are no mulligans in real life war and death. And I do know the cost of war, for the combatants as well as for the inhabitants of the countries in which the occur, close up and personal. To argue that "The Iraqi part of the calculus is simply disregarded" while one

Gee I guess it was just the Dane-Geld, that was the behind the Iraq Awakening. Isn't it difficult to make the contradictory argument that the Iraqis wanted us out forever when it was an Iraqi/American alliance that finally brought defeat and humiliation to AQI and their supporters.

Quoting Lyle: I think you need to understand that Democracies aren't run or moved by polls. Polls do not matter. No elected official is accountable to a poll. They're accountable to voters.

They are accountable to the people, otherwise they can't reasonably claim to be a democracy. Polls are a, albeit sometimes imperfect, measure of the will of the people, and there is overwhelming evidence that the Iraqi's want us out of Iraq, now.

And yes, as I said before, the Iraqi people want us out of Iraq... just not at this very moment. One day though, one day.

I find it hard to believe that you know the opinion of Iraqi's better than they do.

They're also glad the United States of American overthrew Saddam Hussein. There's lots of polls on that too. Yay America! Hi-five George W. Bush!

They also hold us responsible for 1.3 million Iraqis.

Quoting piscivorous: Gee I guess it was just the Dane-Geld, that was the behind the Iraq Awakening. Isn't it difficult to make the contradictory argument that the Iraqis wanted us out forever when it was an Iraqi/American alliance that finally brought defeat and humiliation to AQI and their supporters.

Yes, we bribed some sheiks to attack the other foreign

As the occupation was and is sanctioned by the holy arbitrator of all such things, the UN, it is not illegal. The argument is that since the invasion itself was not so sanctioned it was illegal but I don't believe the same can be said about the occupation.

How do you know the opinions of Iraqis better than me or them? You claim to know what they want as well, so right back at you then. I think we profoundly disagree on how democratic states work. President Obama is not accountable to any present polls. He's accountable to the people who elected him and to the Constitution of the United States. He and other democratically elected leaders do not have to gauge what they do by what the mood of the people is at any given moment. They're judged only by elections. Parliamentary states do things a bit differently, but they're authority derives from elections as well or some kind of voting process... not polls. Again, the current Iraqi government which represents the Iraqi people does not want the United States to leave Iraq at this time. They just had an election recently which justifies the Iraqi government's current policy position, in fact.

This is true, and makes the invasion lawful as well. The same legal process happened with regards to the occupation of Kosovo.

Quoting piscivorous: The original argument was won in 2003, when the majority of American's populace supported going into Iraq...
...If you know of a major deviation from that path please be so good as to inform me because I seem to have missed it.

Well your first point settles it then. You win. We win. The Iraqis have already won. As to you last point: I just woke up and already I'm too tired to argue with this.
Of course you would have been pleased if, given the cards dealt, Obama had simply turned tail like the surrender monkey he was projected to be? I seem to recall that you actually suggested that he would remain and continue along the Bush route. What else could he do? Which returns us to your first point. War now, war first and foremost, we have always been at war and will always remain so. Peace.

Quoting piscivorous: The original argument was won in 2003, when the majority of American's populace supported going into Iraq, a fact that is conveniently forgotten or deliberately ignored ...

Something you forget or ignore is that the majority support was achieved through a concentrated program of misinformation, fear-mongering, and outright lies.