Do you mean this?:
Acorn is to mighty oak, as put-on is to tall tale.

International law is only effective when there is a complete acceptance of the law. Otherwise, it is a joke, unless you want the US to go to war with every violator.

Quoting Tara Davis: Sorry in advance for the threadjack, but it's been almost a week now.

Is Bloggingheads.tv EVER going to get around to covering THE blog-related story of the year? (Possibly the decade?)

If you can't get Andrew Breitbart to come on, how about Hannah Giles? James O'Keefe?

Heck, if nothing else, pick up the phone and call your old friend Jonah Goldberg. He's at least been following the story and might have some interesting things to say about it.

Come on, Bob. The silence is deafening.

I think you're expressing an awfully parochial view. "THE blog-related story of the year? (Possibly the decade?)" Really, catch a breath. Stay away from right wing blogs for a day or two. Believe me, the air will clear. Your eyes will slowly regain their ability to focus. After only a few short months of therapy, you'll be capable moving about in public again without supervision.

Every preteen muslim can me converted to terrorsim. American occupation of muslim territory contributes to that conversion.

Kagan is crazy to speculate that Obama might wage war preemptive war on Iran. I am not certain about a lot of things the prez may do or how his agenda may succeed or unravel, but a war of naked aggression on Iran is about as likely as raising a confederate flag on the White House lawn. I think Bob likes to talk to radical warmongers like Kagan to reassure himself of what I just said: Bob W's fears are allayed when he hears bellicose neo-con loons rant because their mastubatory dreams of war are so far off the current geopolitical charts as to be rendered pubescently innocuous.

Quoting Wonderment: I think Bob likes to talk to radical warmongers like Kagan to reassure himself of what I just said:

Bob W's fears are allayed when he hears bellicose neo-con loons rant because their mastubatory dreams of war are so far off the current geopolitical charts as to be rendered pubescently innocuous.

Hmm, I thought Kagan was very good. But, in any event, what do you make of this statement of Kagan's near the end:

On Iran let me just say...my preferred option is not a military option, but an attempt to see whether the current turmoil in Iran can be pushed so that you actually wind up with a different leadership, which I think is possible. It's certainly more possible than we ever imagined it before. I think that idea goes very much along with the Bob Wright view, you know the progressive view, that that kind of positive change can occur, and that if there's any way we can assist that change, I would like to do so. And I think in a way I'd rather be doing that than obsessing about their nuclear weapon right now. OK? That would be my near-term goal. I think

I always really enjoy watching the Wright/Kagan diavlogs. Very substantive.

Quoting osmium: I always really enjoy watching the Wright/Kagan diavlogs. Very substantive.

I agree. I call for more hot Bob on Bob action!

Quoting osmium: I always really enjoy watching the Wright/Kagan diavlogs. Very substantive.

Yeah sign me up for this club, too. I don't agree with much of what Kagan says, but he makes a good cae for what he believes, and he keeps Bob (Wright) on his toes.

Wow. great conversation. Kagan was a great counterpoint to wright, and i found him pretty convincing, and dare i say... reasonable.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/225...5:18&out=25:49

He was much more fun in this one. Great diavlog. I still dream of a Kagan/Hurlburt match-up at some point.

Quoting Wonderment: Kagan is crazy to speculate that Obama might wage war preemptive war on Iran.

How can it be "crazy" if Obama himself says the option is not off the table?

But, in any event, what do you make of this statement of Kagan's near the end?

First , I would contrast it with his other remarks about his "high-level sources" telling him there's a chance Obama will wage preemptive war on Iran. Either he's lying or they are pulling his chain. Second, I don't buy the Kagan (i.e., neo-con) olive branch. These guys have never repented for the idiotic war they waged on Iraq, or the ideology that energized "shock and awe" (i.e., the mass murder of tens of thousands of people). Kagan represents the hardline neocons like the maniac Bolton who was Bush's guy at the UN (despite Senate refusal to confirm him). They are very dangerous people and quite unlikely to change. But hey, I admire Bob W. for engaging in dialogue. It's consistent with his position on creationists: the more light you shed on ridiculous ideas, the better. Also, it's in the liberal tradition (which the neo-cons have opposed) of talking to anyone. Just as Obama should sit down and talk with Ahmadinejad, so Bob should sit down and talk with Kagan. Bob is good at that sort of thing -- far more respectful than I'm capable of being.

How can it be "crazy" if Obama himself says the option is not off the table?

Trust me, it off the table for most Obama voters (who are already sick and tired of the Obama escalation in Afghanistan). It is, in fact, nearly unthinkable. Of course, the Pentagon always has to think the unthinkable and concoct contingency plans, which explains in part why they say it's not off the table. Also, saying it is off the table would be read as a wimpy concession and a betrayal of Israel. But there's really no such table. The table disappeared when George Bush became a national joke and John McCain lost the election, in part because of his own warmongering on Iran (Ba-ba-bomb Iran!) Those days are over, at least as long as Obama is president.

Quoting Wonderment: Trust me, it off the table for most Obama voters (who are already sick and tired of the Obama escalation in Afghanistan). It is, in fact, nearly unthinkable. .

News flash, Wonderment. Presidents don't always do what their voters want.

This is very true, and a lot of international law proponents either pretend this isn't true or they are blithely ignorant of it.

Dangerous enough people to deal with the likes of the now deceased Saddam Hussein. They won't ever repent, because there is nothing to repent on. Especially since the removal of Saddam Hussein from Iraq is turning out to be a good thing in the region as time goes on.

The other problem is that Israel has been quietly getting support from their neighbors in the region and the big Powers for a possible attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure. The attacks may or may not go down, but if Israel decides to act and has the support of the region, Obama may decide to come out and support what Israel decides to do.

You mean the President Obama that has fully embraced 90% of the President Bush policies, concerning the ex-War on Terror, that denounced those same policies while running, the Won that gave the go to taking out those Somali pirates and the Won that just authorized the elimination or capture of that denizen of humanity Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhanin Somalia. No he would never disappoint his loyal left supplicants would he?

News flash, Wonderment. Presidents don't always do what their voters want.

That is not exactly a newsflash to me. Still, there are aspects of character and conviction that are very unlikely to change. For example, could you imagine Pres. Bush going into office and saying,, "You know that stuff about right to life? I've changed my mind and now fully support abortion-on-demand. Also, I'm now opposed to the death penalty, and I love taxing the rich"? Of course, such transformations are possible, but it would be a very stupid read of character to predict in 2000 that Bush would change in thoses way. Mutatis mutandis, Obama.

Bush did change though didn't he? He campaigned in 2000 on a platform plank about not supporting nation building, like in what the Clinton administration had done in the Balkans. Then 9/11 happens, and boom, he's all for nation building through war.

I'd actually decided not to post on this thread. However, Obama's decision to try to win Russian support for sanctions against Iran by breaking the US promise to extend missile defense to eastern Europe is not going over well, according the European press. Ukraine, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland and others have enjoyed freedom from Russian rule for less than 20 years. Russia is unlikely to change its position on Iran; which means Obama has surrendered on several fronts while gaining nothing. Or maybe Obama bought a promise from Putin to remain on the sidelines when the planes of some un-named nation(s) strike Iran. Let's hope America is getting something out of the deal. US allies in eastern Europe are not happy.

Quoting kidneystones: I'd actually decided not to post on this thread. However, Obama's decision to try to win Russian support for sanctions against Iran by breaking the US promise to extend missile defense to eastern Europe is not going over well, according the European press.

Ukraine, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland and others have enjoyed freedom from Russian rule for less than 20 years. Russia is unlikely to change its position on Iran; which means Obama has surrendered on several fronts while gaining nothing.

Or maybe Obama bought a promise from Putin to remain on the sidelines when the planes of some un-named nation(s) strike Iran.

Let's hope America is getting something out of the deal. US allies in eastern Europe are not happy.

h/t Yglesias. Also: Missile Defense: It Doesn't Work.

Quoting AemJeff: Also: Missile Defense: It Doesn't Work.

Oh, Jeff! Why should anyone care if these really awesome toys work or not!!?! I had toy guns and tanks and planes all throughout my childhood. They never "worked" either, but I loved havin' 'em! Can't you just get with the program?
;-D

Quoting AemJeff: I think you're expressing an awfully parochial view. "THE blog-related story of the year? (Possibly the decade?)"

Really, catch a breath.

Stay away from right wing blogs for a day or two. Believe me, the air will clear. Your eyes will slowly regain their ability to focus. After only a few short months of therapy, you'll be capable moving about in public again without supervision.

Two twenty-something jackasses with a camera created a scandal which ultimately resulted in actions by the Census Bureau and both houses of Congress to sever ties with an organization largely credited with helping to build and coordinate the sitting President's grassroots election campaign. You can love or hate what they did, but it's a massive story, especially from the perspective of what's happening in the blogosphere.

Quoting Tara Davis: Two twenty-something jackasses with a camera created a scandal which ultimately resulted in actions by the Census Bureau and both houses of Congress to sever ties with an organization largely credited with helping to build and coordinate the sitting President's grassroots election campaign.

You can love or hate what they did, but it's a massive story, especially from the perspective of what's happening in the blogosphere.

Heh. Aside from wingnuts with the vapors, nobody gives a crap. Just because the stupid racist ACORN IS TURRURIZIN' ME!!1! horsecrap had Michelle Malkin and the crazy cadre in a feeding frenzy, doesn't mean that ACORN is any more important than most sane people understand it to be. That is, on a scale of ten, about a two. Relax.

Quoting Wonderment: Obama should sit down and talk with Ahmadinejad, so Bob should sit down and talk with Kagan.

Right, same thing. The Bobs had a rich, constructive exchange on serious topics, and Obama and Ahmadinejad could sit down and chat about things like this.

International law: Wright 1, Kagan 2 International relations would certainly be more peaceful if international law were enforceable, but, as numerous political philosophers have pointed out, as long as there is no one state (or association of states) with the authority and power to enforce it, international law (jus gentium) is at best a framework for agreeing on certain limited objectives. But to state the condition for the existence of international law is to state the impossibility of international law---in the strong sense that BW understands. International law will only exist when there are no more nations (states), but then, obviously, it will no longer be international.

Yep an organization that is under indictment in how many states for fraudulent voter registration and now the latest bit. Looks like a RICO case in waiting to me.

Jon Stewart has done a funny take on the Acorn fiasco. This is "gotcha" journalism which the public loves as especially when they can view it. I think it's one of the reasons for the success of "60 Minutes." John

Quoting piscivorous: Yep an organization that is under indictment in how many states for fraudulent voter registration and now the latest bit. Looks like a RICO case in waiting to me.

Well, I'm glad for you Pisc. The issue isn't whether they've done something wrong, that seems pretty obvious. The issue is whether all the screaming and fainting on the part of people who see a possible political benefit flowing from this is disingenuous. The reason the frenzy occurred n the first place has much to do with the deliberate conflating of "voter registration fraud" with voter fraud, by the Malkin and Glenn Reynolds, and Rush, et al. Voter fraud would be taken far more seriously. That and the convenient fact that ACORN represents a population easy to demonize, especially among white Republicans. (It should be noted that the Clinton campaign did not have entirely clean hands in regard to the manipulation of racist sentiment to its advantage.)

If missile defense doesn't work why then is the president not scrapping the whole kit ad caboodle instead of shifting the focus to more theater type defense? And why does this president that is so much smarter than the previous president make the announcement, of abandoning the Poles, on the 70th anniversary of the invasion of Poland by the Nazis. Looks like intelligent diplomacy to me.

When the above mentioned are under indictment your arguemnt might have some semblance of rationality to it.

Quoting piscivorous: If missile defense doesn't work why then is the president not scrapping the whole kit ad caboodle instead of shifting the focus to more theater type defense? And why does this president that is so much smarter than the previous president make the announcement, of abandoning the Poles, on the 70th anniversary of the invasion of Poland by the Nazis. Looks like intelligent diplomacy to me.

Poland has a strange, backwards, right-wing political culture: it should come as no surprise that the government there is crowing about being "abandoned." There is a deep-seated paranoia there, particularly about German and Russian designs. (For obvious reasons.) Does anyone in their right mind think that Russia would attack Poland with missiles? Get real: this is just an example of hysterical Polish paranoia and nationalism.

Quoting AemJeff: Well, I'm glad for you Pisc. The issue isn't whether they've done something wrong, that seems pretty obvious. The issue is whether all the screaming and fainting on the part of people who see a possible political benefit flowing from this is disingenuous.

The reason the frenzy occurred n the first place has much to do with the deliberate conflating of "voter registration fraud" with voter fraud, by the Malkin and Glenn Reynolds, and Rush, et al. Voter fraud would be taken far more seriously. That and the convenient fact that ACORN represents a population easy to demonize, especially among white Republicans. (It should be noted that the Clinton campaign did not have entirely clean hands in regard to the manipulation of racist sentiment to its advantage.)

I'll post these links here in support of your point. It's not obvious that this will dissuade the partisans in favor of perspective... who knows?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/09/18/acorn/ http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...corn_hysteria/

Quoting AemJeff: Well, I'm glad for you Pisc. The issue isn't whether they've done something wrong, that seems pretty obvious. The issue is whether all the screaming and fainting on the part of people who see a possible political benefit flowing from this is disingenuous.

The reason the frenzy occurred n the first place has much to do with the deliberate conflating of "voter registration fraud" with voter fraud, by the Malkin and Glenn Reynolds, and Rush, et al. Voter fraud would be taken far more seriously. That and the convenient fact that ACORN represents a population easy to demonize, especially among white Republicans. (It should be noted that the Clinton campaign did not have entirely clean hands in regard to the manipulation of racist sentiment to its advantage.)

Bingo. There is something more than a little disturbing about white Republicans (with the media in tow) hammering on about the allged sins of an organization devoted to empowering the poor, and minorities! Why is it that so many Republicans seem to lack the empathy gene? After all, you would think this would be a perfect thing for Republians to empathize with: the GOP has been

Quoting piscivorous: If missile defense doesn't work why then is the president not scrapping the whole kit ad caboodle instead of shifting the focus to more theater type defense? And why does this president that is so much smarter than the previous president make the announcement, of abandoning the Poles, on the 70th anniversary of the invasion of Poland by the Nazis. Looks like intelligent diplomacy to me.

Pisc, your talking points are showing. Provide the data! Don't guess about what you think must be true. I have seen nothing that provides even a modicum of confidence in the technical abilities of GMD. I don't know about the shorter range systems they've proposed instead, so I'm not expressing an opinion. Read through the link I got from Yglesias about popular support for these systems in the Czech republic and elsewhere, and then reassert that hopeful meme about a diplomatic faux pas.

Quoting AemJeff: Heh. Aside from wingnuts with the vapors, nobody gives a crap. Just because the stupid racist ACORN IS TURRURIZIN' ME!!1! horsecrap had Michelle Malkin and the crazy cadre in a feeding frenzy, doesn't mean that ACORN is any more important than most sane people understand it to be. That is, on a scale of ten, about a two.

Relax.

Yes, the fox taking a census of the henhouse, nothing to see here, move along. And has an ecological niche formed with Brendan on hiatus? Enough with the wingnut and !!!1! bullshit, please.

Weather it be paranoia or not is it smart to unilaterally abandon one of the few bargaining levers we have in motivating Russia to cooperate in further sanctioning Iran, if that becomes necessary? And it seems that the Polish politicians are not exactly happy with this brilliant move in foreign policy as Polish PM wouldn't take U.S. calls.

You should really try and keep up with current events a little Obama Shifts Focus Of Missile Shield

Quoting look: Yes, the fox taking a census of the henhouse, nothing to see here, move along.

And has an ecological niche formed with Brendan on hiatus? Enough with the wingnut and !!!1! bullshit, please.

Hey, I stole that fair and square. And the model for it is easily found in the headline on right-wing blogs, I didn't even add any flaming skulls and multiple flashing ambulance beacons. And, as Brendan has said repeatedly, "wingnut" has a specific meaning implying more than merely "right-wing." There's an implication dishonesty in service of a particular ideology. (And there's no question but that it occurs on the left, too.) I have to say that your "fox and henhouse" metaphor seems inaccurate. ACORN basic mission is to register poor people to vote. It seems to me that a few of the hens may be a little unruly, but you've misidentified the predators, here. And that's the problem with this whole issue.

ACORN = "an organization largely credited with helping to build and coordinate the sitting President's grassroots election campaign." Yeah and the Death Panels are largely credited with helping Obama kill your Grandmother. What a bunch of nonsense. I'm waiting til Halloween is past to judge the ACORN affair, because it's entirely possible someone else will come up with a more entertaining trick-or-treat stunt, and there may be an even funnier and more outlandish response than the ACORN "plan" to set up 401Ks for sex slaves. This is one of the most idiotic stories ever - and a bogus example of "investigative" journalism. The "journalists" looked ridiculous, sounded ridiculous and were treated the way ridiculous people often get treated when they're not simply ignored or told to leave the premises (as they were on the "ACORN videos" that Glenn Beck doesn't play on FOX.) My bet is that the ACORN employees were doing the exact same thing Beck does on his show every night. Clowning for an absurdly gullible audience - in this case the "reporters" in Halloween costumes.

Quoting nikkibong: Poland has a strange, backwards, right-wing political culture: it should come as no surprise that the government there is crowing about being "abandoned." There is a deep-seated paranoia there, particularly about German and Russian designs. (For obvious reasons.)

Does anyone in their right mind think that Russia would attack Poland with missiles? Get real: this is just an example of hysterical Polish paranoia and nationalism.

The defenses were never about protecting Poland from missiles, they were for defending Western Europe and North America from missiles. But the presence of the installations on Polish soil gave the Poles a sense of being allied with the West, which assuaged their paranoia. This is why the change is upsetting to them. The US needs to make it up to them in other ways.

Quoting brucds: My bet is that the ACORN employees were doing the exact same thing Beck does on his show every night. Clowning for an absurdly gullible audience...

Maybe so, but that means there are quite a lot of clowns at ACORN.

Right, same thing. The Bobs had a rich, constructive exchange on serious topics, and Obama and Ahmadinejad could sit down and chat about things like this.

Well, of course they could. Obama could say, "Sir, people in my country hold many lunatic beliefs. One was the necessity of invading Iraq, your former enemy, in pursuit of fictitious WMDs. Another is the notion among our homegrown fringe white supremacists that I am an Indonesian imposter. Promoting the idea that the Holocaust is 'a lie' is preposterous, obscene and stupid. It reminds me of when you were in the UN and said there were no gay people in Iran. But let's not let odd and dangerous beliefs get in the way of our substantive talks. Too much is at stake. We need to get serious about preventing future wars in the region, abolishing nuclear weapons in the world, addressing the Palestinian issue that you are so passionate about and pursuing both our nations' economic prosperity."

Quoting piscivorous: You should really try and keep up with current events a little Obama Shifts Focus Of Missile Shield

Jeeze, Pisc, at least try to make it appear as if you've read what you're responding to.

Quoting AemJeff: ...
I don't know about the shorter range systems they've proposed instead, so I'm not expressing an opinion. ...

So would you elaborate on the differences in the physics and computational power, that makes the short range systems workable, as I take it President Obama does with his endorsement of their viability, and the longer range ones don't. Soon too this talking point

Quoting AemJeff: ...
Also: Missile Defense: It Doesn't Work.

will like it's predecessor, that argument against the Patriot Missile system, "it doesn't work", will join it's brother in the dust pan of history.

Quoting piscivorous: So would you elaborate on the differences in the physics and computational power, that makes the short range systems workable, as I take it President Obama does with his endorsement of their viability, and the longer range ones don't. Soon too this talking point will like it's predecessor, that argument against the Patriot Missile system, "it doesn't work", will join it's brother in the dust pan of history.

Be careful of what you think you know.

Quoting Wonderment: Trust me, it off the table for most Obama voters (who are already sick and tired of the Obama escalation in Afghanistan). It is, in fact, nearly unthinkable.

Of course, the Pentagon always has to think the unthinkable and concoct contingency plans, which explains in part why they say it's not off the table. Also, saying it is off the table would be read as a wimpy concession and a betrayal of Israel. But there's really no such table.

The table disappeared when George Bush became a national joke and John McCain lost the election, in part because of his own warmongering on Iran (Ba-ba-bomb Iran!)

Those days are over, at least as long as Obama is president.

Wonder, do you consider yourself a pacifist? anti imperialist? or both?

Since the ability to hit a fast moving object with another fast moving object is basically the ability to calculate the trajectory of the former and adjust the latter in real time and considering Moore's Law it makes the task much more likely today than it did in 1991. While the number of transistors does not directly correlate to number of calculations per second it is a fairly good proxy. Gulf War I-2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991 to day 2009. Difference 18 years. So essentially 2 to the 9th power (512 times) increase in the number of calculations a cpu can do in a second. This does not consider the increase in clock speed of the cpu; somewhat below 100 MHz in the late 80s to something over 3 GHz today an increase of what 4 orders of magnitude. Yes, the it doesn't work talking point, has all but used up it's useful propaganda value.

Quoting piscivorous: Since the ability to hit a fast moving object with another fast moving object is basically the ability to calculate the trajectory of the former and adjust the latter in real time and considering Moore's Law it makes the task much more likely today than it did in 1991.

While the number of transistors does not directly correlate to number of calculations per second it is a fairly good proxy. Gulf War I-2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991 to day 2009. Difference 18 years. So essentially 2 to the 9th power (512 times) increase in the number of calculations a cpu can do in a second. This does not consider the increase in clock speed of the cpu; somewhat below 100 MHz in the late 80s to something over 3 GHz today an increase of what 4 orders of magnitude.

Yes, the it doesn't work talking point, has all but used up it's useful propaganda value.

Jeff: there's no data that realistically supports a useful level of confidence in the system. (With links to the data.) Pisc: Here's another, incomparable, system that I say works. Jeff: Here's an analysis of the second system that fundamentally calls into question the assertion

Quoting AemJeff: Jeff: there's no data that realistically supports a useful level of confidence in the system. (With links to the data.)

Pisc: Here's another, incomparable, system that I say works.

Jeff: Here's an analysis of the second system that fundamentally calls into question the assertion that it works.

Here is an argument from 1992 with what relevance to today. And it wasn't I that has shifted the focus to the theater defense strategy; it was President Obama. Apparently his analysis varies from yours and the outdated study.

Quoting AemJeff: Pisc: Here's an analogy from a completely different field on something completeky unrelated. Q.E.D.

That is an awful broad reading. I made no explicit comparison of the rates of technology advancements between microprocessor and missile defense. Can you deny that the physics of of one object striking another boils down to calculating the trajectory of the target and directing the intercept to the correct point in space at the correct time. And once again it is not I making the claim that it works it is the current CIC. Your argument appears to be the President Obama not me.

Quoting piscivorous: Here is an argument from 1992 with what relevance to today. And it wasn't I that has shifted the focus to the theater defense strategy; it was President Obama. Apparently his analysis varies from yours and the outdated study.

That is an awful broad reading. I made no explicit comparison of the rates of technology advancements between microprocessor and missile defense.

Can you deny that the physics of of one object striking another boils down to calculating the trajectory of the target and directing the intercept to the correct point in space at the correct time. And once again it is not I making the claim that it works it is the current CIC. Your argument appears to be the President Obama not me.

Pisc, make it easy for me. In what way is this related to the argument I originally made?

Quoting AemJeff: h/t Yglesias.

Also: Missile Defense: It Doesn't Work.

Oother than opnion piece by Mr Yglesias the only other thought expressed in the original was "Missile Defense: It Doesn't Work" Once again I ask if it doesn't work why does President Obama's defense budget still support it. Yes he has decreased the funding but those cuts are to future systems and expansion of the Alaska and California sites beyond what is currently in place or being built.

And why does this president that is so much smarter than the previous president make the announcement, of abandoning the Poles, on the 70th anniversary of the invasion of Poland by the Nazis.

Neither the Poles nor the Czechs are being "abandoned". They're still allies, still members of NATO, still members of the EU. It's absurd to say the decision not to put missiles in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic reflects any sort of lack of commitment to defending them from...Russia? Iran? Venezuela? Whatever. Obama realized what's always been true, which is that missile defense in Central Europe is more trouble than it's worth. You're not going to find a single date to announce something that doesn't have some sort of symbolic significance in Polish history. That's just the kind of country Poland is. I get that the implied cheap shot is "Look at Poland getting screwed again, just like 70 years ago" but to make that comparison is a bit self-undermining, isn't it? Do you really believe the Russians (or whoever) are actually preparing to invade Poland? I really believe that Czech/Polish disappointment in this decision (which is wildly overstated, I guess because

Georgia!

Quoting piscivorous: Oother than opnion piece by Mr Yglesias the only other thought expressed in the original was "Missile Defense: It Doesn't Work" Once again I ask if it doesn't work why does President Obama's defense budget still support it. Yes he has decreased the funding but those cuts are to future systems and expansion of the Alaska and California sites beyond what is currently in place or being built.

So you're responding to a title, but not to the actual, err... argument? Gimme something that isn't a non-sequitur. I've made no argument about Obama's decision. I haven't compared theater defense to strategic defense. If you want to assert something about those things, feel free, but don't pretend it has something to do with what I posted.

Once again I ask if it doesn't work why does President Obama's defense budget still support it. Yes he has decreased the funding but those cuts are to future systems and expansion of the Alaska and California sites beyond what is currently in place or being built.

You're assuming that people who don't support missile defense in Central Europe believe that there's no waste in Obama's defense budget. That's absurd. Bad ideas and projects that don't work always seem to find room in every budget. Anyway, I don't know if it does or doesn't work. It seems to me that there's no reason that it shouldn't work, but I haven't seen very many hopeful signs that it's anywhere near working right now.

What about Georgia? Georgia is a country on Russia's border that has had a border dispute with Russia since the collapse of the USSR and went to war with them over it in 1990. Neither the CR nor Poland has a border dispute with Russia. Both countries are members of NATO. Georgia is not a member of NATO. It's really apples and oranges.

The strawman argument of waste, fraud and abuse in DOD. I will assert right now and for everyone to read; that there is a percentage of waste fraud and abuse in all government spending. Is the DOD more or less corrupt than any of the other government agencies and departments. My guess is that they all run pretty heavy in the waste, fraud and abuse direction; other wise this President couldn't be making the claim that health care reform will in large part be paid for in savings of waste, fraud and abuse. This is a feature of government involvement not a reason to disavow doing something, unless of course the arguer disagrees with that something to be done.

Hey I just followed the link for which I'm sure one of your leftist buddies thanks me for increasing their hit count. But to base a conclusion primarily upon what data is no longer being supplied, i.e there is something to hide, seems rather spurious to me.

Quoting piscivorous: Hey I just followed the link for which I'm sure one of your leftist buddies thanks me for increasing their hit count. But to base a conclusion primarily upon what data is no longer being supplied, i.e there is something to hide, seems rather spurious to me.

You did recognize that the title of that blog was the same as my sig? No? And you could see the address before you clicked it, right? Other than that, the data is right there, so what are you talking about?

kezboard writes... I agree with pretty much everything in this comment except the partisan swipe at the end. We don't know and shouldn't know the 'behind the scenes' details of US-Russian negotiations. We do know the stakes are extremely high for all concerned: by which I mean the US, Israel, and Iran. Everything possible should be done to avoid war. Nato's new members are not in any immediate danger from Russia. Bush's aggressive behavior expanding Nato is not the cause of Russian hegemony. However, Bush's aggressive behavior gives Obama an important bargaining chip to use with Putin. Putin can boast of defeating America and thus make it much easier for Russia to stand on the sidelines when/should the bombs fall. Georgia is a separate question and my guess is the US will use the Georgians as bargaining chips the same way. Bush didn't invent the game or make the rules, such as they are. Otherwise, great comment.

Quoting popcorn_karate: Wow. great conversation.

Kagan was a great counterpoint to wright, and i found him pretty convincing, and dare i say... reasonable.

I agree with you and Uncle Eb. This kind of diavlog is very useful.

I guess you could classify we moved a bunch of Russians into these two provinces and they do most of their commerce with us therefore we are going to take them and call it something else as a border dispute but I really don't see it that way. I can't really speak to the internal social politics of either Poland or Czechoslovakia and I imagine it is at least as convoluted as ours so a broad statement of the people feel this way, epically one that is unattributed, is hardly dispositive or persuasive. I do know that both provide troops that are allowed to conduct offensive operations in Afghanistan and when President Bush asked for more NATO troops they were two of the countries that came through. I hope that President Obama enjoys similar support, which might actually tell us something about what their real attitude towards this unilateral decision is.

Quite frnakly I don't really pay attention to the signatures of self promotion that some use on this sight. Yes I see them but they just don't register because they have no significance to me. Nothing personal they are all irrelevant to me.

I find it amazing that after 8 years nobody can say with certainty if the war in Afghanistan was a net plus or a net minus? Doesn't that bother people? Shouldn't we be worried that we quite likely ruined the economy going to war and nobody, not even the experts, can tell us if it was worthwhile?

Quoting Unit: I find it amazing that after 8 years nobody can say with certainty if the war in Afghanistan was a net plus or a net minus? Doesn't that bother people? Shouldn't we be worried that we quite likely ruined the economy going to war and nobody, not even the experts, can tell us if it was worthwhile?

I agree: It is amazing. The fact that Obama has made Afghanistan his very own cause only shows that, in some respects, Democrats and Republicans are equally obtuse.

I agree: It is amazing. The fact that Obama has made Afghanistan his very own cause only shows that, in some respects, Democrats and Republicans are equally obtuse.

Amazing and disturbing. Progressives have not fully accepted the fact that Obama -- like his predecessors and his Western allies -- is apparently unaffected by the loss of innocent life in pursuit of murky US and NATO war missions on impoverished countries. The only thing that can be argued in Obama's favor is that he didn't get us into this mess. But the left in the US is finally waking up and asking, why isn't he getting us out?

Quoting Wonderment: Amazing and disturbing. Progressives have not fully accepted the fact that Obama -- like his predecessors and his Western allies -- is apparently unaffected by the loss of innocent life in pursuit of murky US and NATO war missions on impoverished countries.

The only thing that can be argued in Obama's favor is that he didn't get us into this mess. But the left in the US is finally waking up and asking, why isn't he getting us out?

Murky is the word. I have little confidence in the American left's ability to accomplish anything in a country so resolutely uninformed about the rest of the world, but I hope you are right.

Quoting Francoamerican: Murky is the word. I have little confidence in the American left's ability to accomplish anything in a country so resolutely uninformed about the rest of the world, but I hope you are right.

The big picture: Barack Obama ready to slash US nuclear arsenal Barack Obama has demanded the Pentagon conduct a radical review of US nuclear weapons doctrine to prepare the way for deep cuts in the country's arsenal, the Guardian can reveal.

Obama has rejected the Pentagon's first draft of the "nuclear posture review" as being too timid, and has called for a range of more far-reaching options consistent with his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials.

Those options include:

• Reconfiguring the US nuclear force to allow for an arsenal measured in hundreds rather than thousands of deployed strategic warheads.

• Redrafting nuclear doctrine to narrow the range of conditions under which the US would use nuclear weapons.

• Exploring ways of guaranteeing the future reliability of nuclear weapons without testing or producing a new generation of warheads.

The review is due to be completed by the end of this year, and European officials say the

The NPR is hugely important. I have been waiting for this since 2001.

I can't really speak to the internal social politics of either Poland or Czechoslovakia and I imagine it is at least as convoluted as ours so a broad statement of the people feel this way, epically one that is unattributed, is hardly dispositive or persuasive.

First off. You don't know that the country Czechoslovakia hasn't existed since 1993, and yet you feel qualified to comment on the attitude its citizens have towards the US and our military adventures. I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying. Yes, the political situation in the Czech Republic is awfully complicated, but the level of public opposition to the radar bases has been pretty steady since it was proposed, as a link posted earlier illustrates. The opinions among politicians and elites, however, are much more fractious and complicated, since all the different parties have found that accusing others of either being a typical spineless Czech unwilling to cooperate with their allies and stand up to Putin or a typical bootlicking Czech who would put his country in danger just for a chance to get on George Bush's good side. (Yes, it's typically Czech to insult

Quoting kezboard: First off. You don't know that the country Czechoslovakia hasn't existed since 1993, and yet you feel qualified to comment on the attitude its citizens have towards the US and our military adventures. I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying.

And the Rams moved from Los Angeles in 1994 but when I see or hear Rams I still think Los Angeles or the Colts Baltimore.

Quoting kezboard: Yes, the political situation in the Czech Republic is awfully complicated, but the level of public opposition to the radar bases has been pretty steady since it was proposed, as a link posted earlier illustrates. The opinions among politicians and elites, however, are much more fractious and complicated, since all the different parties have found that accusing others of either being a typical spineless Czech unwilling to cooperate with their allies and stand up to Putin or a typical bootlicking Czech who would put his country in danger just for a chance to get on George Bush's good side. (Yes, it's typically Czech to insult people by calling them "typical Czechs".) The level of support among ODS voters -- the prime minister's party -- is fairly high, but that's

This entry comes a little late, since the video went up last week. But I thought it worthwhile to make some comments anyway, in large part because these Wright-Kagan conversations all seem to suffer from the same failures in dialogue again and again. And in the interest of repairing the mistakes and making for better conversation in the future, citing these mistakes seemed warranted. Far and away the largest problem in the dialogue is the way Wright and Kagan fly from topic to topic. At one moment they are discussing the enduring influences of 9/11 on US defense policy. In the next they are debating the potential threat of China. In the next they are discussing the original purposes of intervening in Afghanistan. And in the next they are debating whether the feedback effect of these interventions produces more or less terrorists. Of course these topics do have some relations to one another. But the way Wright and Kagan shift recklessly to one issue and then another, completely undermines any foundation for in depth discussion. And because the two of them have very litigious styles for argument

None of the diavlogs are ever supposed to be a careful deliberation. Diavlogs are simple conversations, not structured discourse. Fewer people would probably come on if it wasn't such a laid back happening.

Quoting Lyle: None of the diavlogs are ever supposed to be a careful deliberation. Diavlogs are simple conversations, not structured discourse.

Fewer people would probably come on if it wasn't such a laid back happening.

Yeah, if they had to prepare, they would refuse the opportunity to debate. They come on because it's easy (and low risk due to modest number of viewers). I agree the diavlogs lack structure, but we do get to see glimpses of the thought processes of talented people that we would not otherwise see. I watch to be challenged by ideas, and I can be swayed by ideas. But the fact that Kagan "wins" the debate does not sway me.

"We will complete a Nuclear Posture Review that opens the door to deeper cuts, and reduces the role of nuclear weapons. " Barack Obama at the UN today.

Stumbled across this while looking for something else:

How many Kagans does it take to screw in a light bulb?

One to describe how well it is going, one to say how marvelous the room will look when it is well-lit, and one to tell the workmen that with enough force, the bulb can be screwed directly into the ceiling plaster.

;^)