1251. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #123199 by MaxD on February 6, 2008 at 3:24 pm

I thought his opponent was going to be really simple minded but he was quite pleasant.

1252. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #123197 by MaxD on February 6, 2008 at 3:16 pm

Hitch was hilarious in his opening.

1253. Jay Spears: Smak Dem Christians Down

Comment #123194 by MaxD on February 6, 2008 at 3:09 pm

Flobear,
Lets not give Tom Cruise any credit at all. go here for an overview of scientology and its tactics.
http://gawker.com/5002269/the-cruise-indoctrination-video-scientology-tried-to-suppress
or type in operations clambake at google for an excellent website.

1254. The New Atheist Movement

Comment #123187 by MaxD on February 6, 2008 at 3:00 pm

Wow. That is 8 minutes I will never get back.
Talk about disingenuous.

1255. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123118 by MaxD on February 6, 2008 at 1:22 pm

For Hugh:
Lets see a little of that zeal for punitive actions against Galloway!
The Galloway Papers
Parliament's damning report about Saddam apologist George Galloway.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, July 23, 2007, at 12:07 PM ET

George Galloway
The mills of justice grind with maddening slowness, but they do at least grind. In October 2005, my friend Denis MacShane, the radical Labor member of Parliament for Rotherham, rose on the floor of the House of Commons to demand a joint inquiry by the British parliament and the U.S. Congress into the financial relationship between George Galloway and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. This followed the report that month, by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, that presented persuasive evidence showing that Galloway's front organization, a "charity" known as the Mariam Appeal that campaigned against the sanctions on Iraq, had in fact received direct Iraqi subventions from the proceeds of the U.N.-sponsored "Oil for Food" program. Bank records established that Galloway's former wife had been paid at least $150,000 in this way. A completely separate U.N. inquiry chaired by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker* identified another "Oil for Food" payment to the same lady, this time in the sum of $120,000.

MacShane's intervention was important, not least because the House of Commons requires its members to declare all sources of outside income. An inquiry was set up, by the Committee on Standards and Privileges, to investigate. It has now produced its report, along with a recommendation that Mr. Galloway apologize to the House and be suspended from Parliament for 18 days. And the findings of the report are even more damning, if that is possible, than the conclusions reached by the Senate and Volcker investigations. In particular, they make reference to the transcript of a meeting between Galloway and Saddam Hussein on Aug. 8, 2002. On that date, Galloway complained to his political masterâ€"the man he had saluted in public for his "courage" and "indefatigability"â€"that certain problems with oil prices were affecting "our income" and "our dues."

This raises two quite serious questions. The first is the extent to which the Iraqi Baath Party was able to purchase direct influence among Western politicians: George Galloway has been a hysterically extremist political thug for a long time, but others more supposedly "respectable," including some important Russian and French politicians and diplomats, may have been sweetened and suborned in the same way. The second has to do with a purely moral issue. The "Oil for Food" program was the means by which the most vulnerable people in Iraqâ€"the children, the sick, and the agedâ€"were supposed to be protected from the effect of sanctions aimed at the regime. To have profited from its abuse or its diversion is therefore somewhat worse than to have accepted a straight-out bribe or inducement from Saddam Hussein. It is to have stolen directly from the neediest and the weakest, in order to finance a propaganda campaign that in turn blamed the West for the avoidable sufferings of Iraqis between 1991 and 2003.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The "anti-war" movement is not blameless in all this. When Galloway came to testify before the Senate and delivered a spittle-fueled harangue instead of answering the direct questions posed to him, he became a populist hero on the Left, was rewarded with a moist profile in the New York Times that praised his general feistiness, and was invited back to the United States to mount a speaking tour in which he repeated his general praise for the heroic "resistance" in Iraq, adding a few well-chosen words in support of the Assad regime in Syria. Praise was showered upon him in the Daily Kos, by columnists in The Nation, and elsewhere. Now we have the sober words of Sir Philip Mawer, the parliamentary commissioner for standards among elected members, who adds to the existing reports and evidence by saying that however much Galloway may have "prevaricated and fudged," the evidence against him is "now undeniable."

I do not think that an 18-day suspension from the House of Commons is anything like enough punishment for what Galloway has done, first on behalf of a sadistic and genocidal megalomaniac and second to steal food and medicine from the mouths of desperate Iraqis. We ran into each other a few times on his debate-tour, and on the last occasion on which we exchanged views, when he told me that he would never debate with me again (which he has since consistently refused to do), I told him that we were not done with each other. I would, I told him, be waiting to write a review of his prison diaries. The Senate subcommittee referred his "false and misleading" statements under oath (a crime under 18 USC Section 1001) to the Department of Justice in November 2005. Prosecutors in Manhattan (location of the banks through which some of the shady transfers were made) have also been handed the relevant papers. And the evidence adduced by the House of Commons must necessarily be considered by Scotland Yard, because it goes far beyond the damage done to the honor of Parliament. In the meantime, it will be interesting to discover whether Galloway's former wife, or the associates of his campaign who also received "Oil for Food" money, ever declared the income or paid any tax on it. And if I was the editor of the Daily Telegraph in London, whose printed documents about Galloway appear to have been vindicated by the parliamentary inquiry, I would want to revisit the judgment for libel that Galloway astonishingly managed to win, even under a notoriously oppressive law, in an English court. His troubles are only now beginning.

Just look at the gang that strove to prevent the United Nations from enforcing its library of resolutions on Saddam Hussein. Where are they now? Gerhard Schroeder, ex-chancellor of Germany, has gone straight to work for a Russian oil-and-gas consortium. Vladimir Putin, master of such consortia and their manipulation, is undisguised in his thirst to re-establish a one-party state. Jacques Chirac, who only avoided prosecution for corruption by getting himself immunized by re-election (and who had Saddam's sons as his personal guests while in office, and built Saddam Hussein a nuclear reactor while knowing what he wanted it for), is now undergoing some unpleasant interviews with the Paris police. So is his cynical understudy Dominique de Villepin, once the glamour-boy of the "European" school of diplomacy without force. What a crew! Galloway is the most sordid of this group because he managed to be a pimp for, as well as a prostitute of, one of the foulest dictatorships of modern times. But the taint of collusion and corruption extends much further than his pathetic figure, and one day, slowly but surely, we shall find out the whole disgusting thing.

1256. Blasphemy

Comment #122736 by MaxD on February 5, 2008 at 10:40 pm

Styer,
I think you miss the point of the letter. Someone mentioned it was an attack. Dennett gets to take the high road. Islamists you love to say what a religion of peace you are now you get to prove it.
His tone will not inflame, or hurt. But if the moderates are serious they have to answer the call. If they don't they prove themselves to be reprehensible hypocrites nowhere near as civilized as the rest of us.
If your faith is so strong why all the violence and coercion? And why moderates will you never say no?
I don't think it is disengenous but rather a firm push into the corner, out of which one can only show their true colors.

1257. Blasphemy

Comment #122734 by MaxD on February 5, 2008 at 10:34 pm

Like everyone else here I am kind of in awe of this succint letter. To press an analogy from boxing, it is a tight left hook on the inside, the definiative K.O. punch.
It challenges those who would define Islam as a religion of peace. It does indeed challenge whacky relativist fence sitters. And it no doubt allows the Islamo-fascist to illustrate the point so many of us make of fundementalism. And it does in less than a page.
HOLY SHIT.

1258. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #122730 by MaxD on February 5, 2008 at 10:12 pm

Gawddawg,
I don't think my arguments are based on that assumption at all. I have suggested that key people in the White House specifically Rumsfeld do not share my motivation or solidarity with Iraqis. ("Freedom is messy.") I do think Wolfowitz was well intentioned, he had pushed for ending the regime in 91 when Saddam crushed his internal resistance in his typically unrestrained fashion. But here let me let Wolfowitz speak for himself:
"Finally, containment did nothing for the Iraqi people." As Thomas Ricks would note, in his scathing review of the Iraq War, "large parts of the Iraq population suffered hugely under a contained Saddam, and the Marsh Arabs of southern Iraq, were on the route to being wiped out. Wolfowitz went on to say, "Thats what containment did for them."

General Zinni, in Command of the Iraq containment during much of the ninties also worried about the containment policy and thought it needed to be refined. During his time in that operating theatre there were several actions agaist Saddam, 1994, 1996 and the biggest in 1998. This was the infamaous huge round of bombings in which the republicans accused Clinton of trying to distract the public from the Monica Lewinsky business. Clearly this is the wrong interpretation. Clinton had been dogged for not doing enough against various terrorist aggressions and had toward the end of his presidency taken a much harder stand.

In 1998 Saddam had again made a stand against weapons inspections, and the Zinni planned Desert Fox strikes hammered Iraqi installations with 415 cruise missles, along with 600 or so other bombs striking a total of 97 sites. Among these were major targets including manufacturing sites and storage sites for chemical weapons, also hit were storage sites for munitions that could function as delvery platforms for these chemical weapons. Intelligence was limited on these sites so command and control facilities, and Iraqi intelligence and secret police head quarters were also hit.

Zinni was shocked at how effective these strikes were. The operation "exceeded expectations...Saddam panicked during the strikes fearing his control was threatened, he ordered large scale arrests adn executions, which backfired and destablized his regime for months afterward." That is what Kenneth Pollack wrote in his book the Case for Invading Iraq. Saddam changed his command and control quickly which further destablized him.

Zinni was later sought out by arab allies who were receiving the same news of destablization with the worry about the plan if Saddam did topple. As he would later recount those conversations, "You guys almost caused an implosion. What are you going to do about it if it does topple?"

Now many people say that the reason for invading pretty much vanished in 1998 as the iraqi weapons manufacturing specifically of chemical and biological WMD had ceased. I suppose that is if you take the dim view that our safety is what is paramount, and that since Saddam was only killing and maiming his own people we should moreor less look the other way. A humanitarian case can be made for invasion if you aren't looking to show off your success for the American people in a wham bam thank you mame kind of way. By that I mean way that neglects the effort and commitment in man power that would be necessary to pull it off. When asked by Colin Powell's state department to run the numbers, it was with near unanimity that Army historian came back with staggering numbers like 350 to 400 thousand troops to secure the country.

the effects of Desert Fox were not fully appreciated until much later in part because Republicans had convinced themselves it was a case of wagging the dog. And because there were so few human intellegence sources in Iraq between then and now.

I bring this up because it points out a couple of important points. Saddam had been dabbling in the maintance of some small WMD stockpiles up to 98. Intelligence failures and Saddam's own truculence helped make him a more credible threat than he actually was. To some, my self included, that created nervousness about his intentions and capablities. Nobody likely thought Saddam would strike us on our soil. For me it comes back to a sense of solidarity i have for the iraqis. So while the WMD seemed an unlikely threat, what was unacceptable was Saddam's continued defiance.

While Hugh lavishes great praise on the sovereign nation of Iraq I don't. I would call into question its claims to its sovereign status considering its election of Hussein was clearly not the will of the people. Its tactics were utterly brutal (ask the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs and anyone who fan afoul of Saddam or his sons) and while not dangerous to us (except in the mostly limited sense of being able to agitate oil prices in a skyward direction) it was a nation that was dangerous to its neigbors.

How long is too long when waiting for a mad man (one who increasingly courted mulsim fanatics) to capitulate? And on whose back are we placing the burden of that wait? The UN which everyone seems to think we ought to go along with on everything was quite un-moved by the iraqi plight. It could be because other veto holders -Russia and France- were also making a fucking mint helping Saddam circumvent sanctions.

The story of Desert Fox explains why it was thought we needed to actually occupy the country were we to remove Hussein. Implosion = bad. I daresay you would have more than a proxie war in Iraq were it not for the presense of coalition forces in Iraq right now. Simply cutting off the head of the Hussein regime via cruise missle or some other high tech but low risk means would mean a huge power vaccum in which Iran and Syria and Turkey and numerous sectarians would try to fill.

So again some of you are pushing against an open door. As Keith said, "Sometimes good things can sometimes happen for bad reasons." My daughter is a perfect example of this though an imperfect analogy. (Oh man we're out!...Well just this once...)

Al rawandi has said that US was in no position to take the moral leadership on this one. I'm not sure I can agree because past mistakes don't negate future contributions. But who does take the lead on this issue?

I will quickly answer the point Hugh or some other person will no doubt make. "What about country x and all its attendant atrocities?" They ought to be put on notice too. We should be less apologetic, and much more consistent in our application of human rights. Does that mean I think we ought to go bombing everyone (Maybe West Virginia for giving republican delegates to Mike Huckabee)? No, I clearly do not endorse that policy at all, lets exhaust the peaceful forms of negotion to the extent that it produces results.

well this post is already too long so I will leave it hear for now.

1259. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #122690 by MaxD on February 5, 2008 at 8:08 pm

If you want to look at my whole thoughts on the Afghan school shooting you can go to my blog and look under june 2007 my piece is titled "The wonders of Islam."
http://maxiitheblindwatchmaker.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_archive.html

1260. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #122675 by MaxD on February 5, 2008 at 7:33 pm

Al rawandi
Last things first. The Guard because I have a daughter and a wife and the officer training program will actually work better for me while juggling this family thing. My wife is finishing her last year of med school now and with the Guard it is a fairly easy thing to just switch to a new state. Though depending on what I do and if I really dig the green, well digital green life I may just go active (if I can find an MOS that doesn't have me jumping hither and yon on a regular basis and for 15 months at a stretch). I scored extremely high on the ABSVAB test, plus I have a bachelors in a science so I can pretty much write my own ticket. To the extent anyone can write their own ticket in the big green machine of course. Post enlistment, its off to basic, then I will do a 15 week advanced individual trainging (AIT) to learn how to be an MP. Upon return I will go to my recruiter request commissioin and begin Officer Training.

I have been having this discussion with myself about the military for years. I would read about this problem or that atrocity (Abu Gharib say or the rape/murders) and I would bitch about it and my liberal friends and my liberal self would have a hoot about what assholes they were. Since then though I have reflected on how few people in my position actually join the military. We ivory tower types point at the problems suggest this or that from a distance but don't put ourselves in the situation.
after reading the book Fiasco I've decided that this is a travesty. My alma mater doesn't allow recruiters on campus, but I wonder how much better our services might be if they benefitted more the enlistment of not just the poor, and largely uneducated. (That isn't a knock on the current troops just an identification of a problem.)
I can complain about the military using poor people, but recruiters go where they are wanted. So I decided that maybe I could do some good in the military.
The straw that broke the camel's back though was reading about two guys in Afghanistan on a motorcycle driving by a co-ed school and mowing down some little girls for having the temerity to attend school. So there are some of the reasons.

1261. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #122199 by MaxD on February 4, 2008 at 10:46 pm

Al-rawandi,
I'm not sure where I said the ends justify the means. It certainly wasn't my intent so let me see if I can clarify.

Iraq, You break it, you buy it.
I think this is part of why I am sorta "for" the war. We did break it. First by setting up a dicatator of stark lunacy. Then by failing to help the Iraqis we told to rise up at the end of Gulf war 1. Instead we opted for the pragmatics of Powell and Stormin Normin who knew-right or wrong- the US will not tolerate a lot of casualties on their TV screens. Well they won't tolerate a lot of US soldiers anyway. We should have toppled Saddam in 91 and helped the iraqis then.
Instead we have wallowed in half measures that have been catastrophic for the Iraqi people, and prior to that for the region.

Stating that the US is responsible for terrorist attacks doesn't impugn me. I am not the administration or past administrations nor will I be part of future admins (too many drunken party videos, oh and I am an athiest). I am as sickened by our great Henry Kissinger and President Nixon as you are. I don't support violations of human rights. I don't support the use of such tactics. I do not support our mindless support of Israel. I have never said such a thing. I won't make anymore Michael Moore cracks, you try not to read me too closely.

My point about his subborning of terror attacks in israel was simply to state that he was fomenting trouble in the region and trying to inflame Israelis. I think it is shitty when he does it, I think it is shitty when we do it. My reasons aren't completely on par with the admin's but more about that in minute.

On to your points.
1. Iraq is a terrorist haven.
It was always too comfortable with terrorists and considering its rather sketchy history of atrocities of terror might we not consider it dangerous.
2,3,and 4 all seem to be subsets of the same thing. All of this was there bubbling under the surface only kept in check by the iron fist of Saddam. A similar thing occured when Ugoslavia broke apart. The Soviet Union had kept in check sectarian strife with inhuman tactics of its own and when that oppression was lifted there was the older one waiting under the surface.
5. is a subset of the sectarian business. Important though because of 6 I suppose. (Let me say that I too predicted at least 2, 3 and 4, and a little of 5.)
6. part II. i am unware though of the proxie war that is going on. Could you point me to some literature on it?
7. True
8. True
9. Our rep seems to be in constant trouble but lets grant it.
10. More likely it will be your children's problem unless a dem or McCain gets into the white house and raises taxes to pay for the war effort and all the other money we're spending but don't have.
11. True
12. I'm sure this is true.
13. This was the main reason I was against changing our containment strategy at the time. It remains the best argument in my mind for waiting, continuing to pressure Iraq while we hammered out the details of Al-Qaeda's death throes and turned the country around. Here is a huge opportuntity cost, and one you will get no argument from me on. Our commitment in Afghanistan essentially meant that any military action in Iraq-which I think was quite possibly inevitable anyway- was doomed. The US doesn't have enough active duty personel to handle the two front war. Perhaps multifront war is a better term.
14. Katrina was a debacle the roots of which were not located soley or even mostly in Iraq.

Saddam Hussain had flouted the security counsel resolutions, had committed mass murder crimes against humanity style. Showed no sign of ever capitulating to resolutions, inspections or other demands by the world community. More than this he had found numerous ways to escape the sanctions.

One of the chief suspects in the 93 world trade center bombings fled directly to Iraq. The Saddam regime was actively trying to aquire WMD unitl 1995, appeared to have actual chemical WMD when Clinton authorized the bombings in 99 or was it 98? Even right up to the end Saddam was refusing to cooperate with inspections all the while the darling of the anti-war movement Hans Blix was telling us not problem. However other weapons inspectors were saying there was no way they could do their jobs under the conditions imposed by Saddam. People were terrorized to make them complicit in hiding info. Saddam Hussein also attempt to have president Herbert Walker assissinated while he visited Kuwait. This to me seems like reason enough to have sent a stern message to Saddam.

Saddam's continued rejection of the terms given him at the end Gulf War 1 make we wonder why we waited as long we did. Why do we have to continue to be held up by the whims of a madman. I for one was nervous by Saddam's saber rattling. he had shown no compunction about using WMD before.

250,000 is not a number unworthy of intervention in my eyes. It wasn't the case when Coalition forces rolled into bagdad either. Iraqis did want help to oust the guy, but they didn't want an occupying force either.


I agree with Hitchens on this point. Such regimes are incompatable with civil society. I must also reiterate that my reasons are not Bush's reasons or his admins. I've come to think that maybe our contentment to sit on the sidelines and then use santions were a mistake.

I am not sure that clarifies things. I am working on an hour and a half of sleep though so cut me just a wee bit of slack!

And lest you think I am just some shmoe with no interest in this, I swear into the Army National Guard this week. So it will be my boots on the groundin one of these countries in a few months most likely. So please believe me when I say I am not some arm chair hawk. And I still waffle on the issue of Iraq because i think it is a complicated issue.

1262. God vs. Gridiron

Comment #122176 by MaxD on February 4, 2008 at 9:07 pm

As a former professional athlete, I feel the need for raw adreneline and testosterone from time to time. Apologies.
---no need to apologize. I am not pro-but aspiring I guess. I just took first at a local submission grappling tournament, and I slammed everyone of my opponents. I also train MMA fighters (mostly in BJJ but I used to box too so help their boxing coach alot. If they ever talk me into getting into the cage I'll post the massacre, which ever way it goes- on my blog.)

I would say a helmet to helmet hit is as nasty as it comes in sports. Except maybe a fastball to the face (baseball), I have delivered such a blow and it is not pleasant.
Helmet to helmet? Sounds nasty. Sport Science didn't do that. They did the quarter back sack from behind. that looked horrible too. I think Tom Brady should have watched that tape!

Fastball to face, though ugh. That is an express trip to reconstuctive surgery land I would think.

1263. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #122103 by MaxD on February 4, 2008 at 5:58 pm

hey I never got a letter back from mike pence.

1264. God vs. Gridiron

Comment #122102 by MaxD on February 4, 2008 at 5:54 pm

Al-rawandi, I would love to see that too! Was that mindless brutality coming out.

I was watching sport science a few weeks ago and the show was looking at the hardest hits in sports. The football hit was right up there (with a Quinton 'rampage' jackson right hook I think) with the best hits. However when you watch the hit in extreme slow-motion what you see immediately is the way the padding diffuses the impact. Its still terribly hard-harder in fact than the rugby hits- but somewhat offset by the physics of their pads.

I'm less concerned about the hits (now that they have some concussion regulations) where someone gets flattened than I am when people get twisted up. All I can think about is ACLs, necks, ankles etc. The other thing that always makes me wince is when the tackling player tucks his head down just before he smashes into his target. I think that is the most common way necks get broken in football I think.

I like to see a good hit but I also like to see everyone get up and walk away.

1265. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #122100 by MaxD on February 4, 2008 at 5:36 pm

Opened up the floodgates? Ha. The ones that Saddam kept closed by slaughter of his own?

What's the phrase, we lost the initiative? I think that is what happened here. I wasn't for it but I do think, if you talk to the alot of strategists it was doable and would have had a good outcome for the Iraqi people. It meant employing the Iraqi troops though and it meant showing the people you cared about their stuff. On the ground this didn't happen with results depressing in their predictability.
Many generals and army historians were calling for 350,000, 400.000 men. Rumsfeld had no desire to put that many troops in action, told the pres "No 150,00 is all we need." Speed kills was the motto.
Anyway there was a paucity of credible thinking occuring when the planning was going on. I agree. I also agree that Bush white house was quite adament about not paying attention to people who offered dissenting views.

1266. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #122098 by MaxD on February 4, 2008 at 5:25 pm

bhima said:

"There might be a logical reason for the Iraq...but there could be no ethical reason."

I do disagree with that statement. I think that there were good humanitarian reasons for going into Iraq. Saddam Hussain did pay for terrorist attacks abroad specifically in Israel, but more than this he had brutalized the iraqi people for 25 years. His sons joined in the fun. He had shown no tendency to limit his own designs for the region.

I happen to agree with you that the US bears a great deal of the responsibility for this situation. And it goes back to our helping maintain his power (this may be another good reason for US involvement I don't know to make amends). As such I think this is closing the chapter on this character. I think this will largely be considered part of the first gulf war and I agree that history will not look kindly on it.

1267. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #122076 by MaxD on February 4, 2008 at 3:29 pm

I think my main point is simply that there were good arguments for going to war in Iraq. I'm not saying they were entirely made or the right convictions held by the current admin. I think they've bungled what could have been a good thing for iraqis and the rest of the world.

I can say I support the war for reason x or that objective x can be achieved whether the Bush admin is explicitedly advocating that x. I've not said that bush made that case, in fact I've been nothing but critical of the entire operation. I do think Hitch has made a compelling case for intervention in Iraq. I am not saying that is the case the admin has made.

On the point about the no-bid contracting. I think I may have failed to be clear. I agree with you that it should have been open to anyone who could provably get the job done at the most cost effective price. My emphasis on iraqi companies was simply to expedite the perception you identified as necessary, namely that we had confidence in the people of Iraq, and this effort was first and foremost about them.

I don't have to address your fourteen points because I've already conceded them with posts like, I agree there are good reasons to have not invaded. I am in fact convinced that this was not the time to invade. But I am bothered by the sometimes facile treatment some of anti-war people in here treat the issue. Some of us have been called-not by you-hoodlums, otiose etc. On top of that I think there has been some playing with the facts especially the number of deaths since the intervention.
For instance if the statement again not by you, that 250,000 is just a fraction of the people killed by the american action in iraq. This is disengenous in that the mass of these casualties are not caused by direct US action. I would be willing to bet that the actual number of deaths actually caused by the US in this action are not more than Saddam's. I'm not saying that is good, or anything. Just that you don't want to overstate your case.

1268. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #122056 by MaxD on February 4, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Thanks Al-rawandi for explaining war to me Oliver Stone/Michael Moorer style.

Wow its just a bunch of rich people getting richer. Of course its money laundering. It can't be about creating more stable regions that have wider benefits, or just action as in the case of Afghanistan? Nope its always about making people richer. Protecting American interests (sorry this is a legitamate use of the military I think)? Nope clearly its all kinds of New World ordering.

Actually I agree with you that Haliburton was overcompensated, fraudulent, neglegent and utterly greedy and incompetent here. I just wanted to slam you for your condescending tone. I think that if they weren't going to use Iraqi contractors then the US Army corp of engeneers should have just got to work where the skill wasn't available to use iraqis. Here's the thing though, Cheney wasn't on board with the invasion until after 9/11, then his attitude changed dramatically. I'm not saying that made them make a great deal of good choices here. They underplayed the risks and best cased at every opportunity. But I think the reasons are very much more subtle than Bush and Cheney wanted to make a mint. The government has longed use Haliburton, I don't know why. I was and am against the no-bid contracting that occured.

Was there opportunism occuring? I'm not denying it. SHould there be investigations? I'd be very happy to see them. But it doesn't alter my case that there were good reasons for going in to iraq.

Concerning Iran: There seems to be enough freedom for intellectual rebellion, and the exchange of ideas. The average Iranian seem quite on the side of a reduction of fundementalist goofiness. I think we should continue our efforts to support its democratic peoples movement. To the extent they ask for it,I think we ought to be there to help.
North Korea is another target we ought to be trying to open up information, free thought and democracy.

1269. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #122028 by MaxD on February 4, 2008 at 2:15 pm

I would like to see numbers on the casualties inflicted by our militaries and compare them to Saddam's carnage. I suspect they are at least comparable. The great majority of the deaths has much more to do with sectarian violence in Iraq.
No argument that the santions were bad.

Haliburton got plenty of no-bid contracts from under the Clinton admin too. Though, I do agree haliburton benefits look suspcious. Indeed I am angry Cheney didn't divest of this company holdings. Fuck him.

SEALs, ForceRecon Marines, probably Delta to name just a few all preceded the Iraq invasion. They were carrying out operations prior to all that Shock and Awe. Precision missiles were used to to reduce civilian casualties I see now what you refering too my mistake.

Here is the reason why I think they didn't just hit saddam with these bombs. When Clinton hit them in 98(?) it almost brought the regime to an end. It shook the WMD (chemical) aspirations like an irish setter killing a rabbit. This effort to aquire WMD was essentially killed at this moment (Ricks 2005). However it set the regime reeling and Kuwait, Suadi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel suggested to the Clinton admin that they need to watch what they were doing as they almost pushed the Saddam regime over the edge. Specifically they needed a plan to deal with the fallout of such actions were they to topple the regime.

Sure they could have-possibly though our precision weaponry has done little to stop Osama- hit Saddam and his worthless brood from a comfy arm chair on some US ship. However that doesn't solve the vaccum that would be filled by cantakerous factions like Iran, Syria, and perhaps Turkey.

Certainly this would have affected in a most negative way oil prices. But I am not sure that is the counter argument you think it is. The US didn't annex Iraq which it would have to do to be as law breaking as Iraq was when it did that to Kuwait. That answers Hugh's charge.

I think that is one of the reasons we wanted to put our forces on the ground Iraq. So there are more reasons than this charge of putting money in Cheney's pocket for putting troops in harms way. If they just wanted to do that Cheney could have made this fortune back in Gulf war one.

For the fiasco that followed "Mission accomplished" you have look deeper at the inter-service, interoffice fighting that was going on over strategy and how many troops were needed to actually manage the country. Rumsefeld was the key voice here and he ensured failure by never listening to the Army about other successful regime changes (namely Japan and Germany).

(Thanks for those figures on the casualities. 250,000 is no matter worth ignoring. Also the Iraq situation was never soley about the Iraqi people. I'm discussing the sanctions now. The sanctions were -i presume- to limit the power and influence of a dicator who showed no sign of giving up his own dangerous, power schemes. Again he could have capitulated. The rest of the international community could have said, man enough is enough. Lets just oust this guy and help them set up an iraqi democracy. None of this happened. I believe it was Galloway-in part who helped see that the oil for food program was such a disaster. And in answer to your question who is the US to decide? Who was the North to decide the South shouldn't have slaves? Was attack on Saddam completely about the people? No. Should it have been? Yes. Did some involved think about the people. Wolfowitz certainly did. I would be willing to be it was like, well we can take care of multiple birds with this one-hundred-eighty billion plus dollar stone.)

1270. Fear Is Stronger Than Hope When It Comes To Fitness

Comment #121988 by MaxD on February 4, 2008 at 1:02 pm

Is this really too surprising? I mean think of what so many willdo to look fit and be able to do "fit" things. Steroid abuse is more or less rampant and much of the rational seems to fit the I want to be look good, be tough, types of mind sets.

1271. God the psycho

Comment #121980 by MaxD on February 4, 2008 at 12:50 pm

What I like is the nice friendly tone Pat takes at the begining of this. And then the ...which is why I don't want your god finding me. Thanks though...

1272. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #121979 by MaxD on February 4, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Wow. This is not terribly surprising. Science dept bring in a great deal of money and prestige to universities, but the religiously minded, and the easily offended whine much much louder.

"We are technically a secular institution but...." Fucking priceless. That like saying I'm not a racist but.....

1273. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121972 by MaxD on February 4, 2008 at 12:35 pm

Al rawandi said:
So no more false analogies about "genocide". When the US imposed sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of children to pressure a dictator which the US installed, the US committed genocide. When someone addresses that they then have the moral right to ask me about intervention.

That is a strange statement. Saddam could have capitulated. He chose not to. Again you make the case for removal.

Nor does constantly banging the tired gong about Saddam being hand picked by the US help your case. I suppose as a debate tactic its great. I scores points and clarifies a very black mark on US foreign policy. You fail to take the next step though with your analysis. Its good the US has decided to do something other than sanctions which were horribble for the iraqi people.

And your comment about no clandestine operations and no precision airstrikes is total nonsense I am afraid to say. Plenty of both was going on.
Though the fixation on Chalabi was stupid and was something I certainly think was a mistake.

I for one am in agreement with you that it shouldn't be the US who picks the next government of Iraq, but that it should be democratically decided. Freedom is better for all involved.

1274. God vs. Gridiron

Comment #121889 by MaxD on February 4, 2008 at 9:53 am

Rugby? A league? What about their silly outfits? And their toothless illiterate nature? Its like hockey without the fights.
Okay that was deliberately provocative.

1275. God vs. Gridiron

Comment #121883 by MaxD on February 4, 2008 at 9:46 am

Football is infinitely more interesting than Christ.

1276. Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

Comment #121665 by MaxD on February 3, 2008 at 11:14 pm

Wow, what utter fucking sillyness.
I am with everyone else on this thread. fire, or expel their asses if they won't do their jobs.

1277. God vs. Gridiron

Comment #121647 by MaxD on February 3, 2008 at 10:02 pm

goldy,
I think I will be alright, but thanks for the good word!
Can't believe I managed a heresy in this community.

1278. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121645 by MaxD on February 3, 2008 at 9:59 pm

I think Riley has hit upon some key points but I think this actually over credits the imagination and scope of vision where this conflict in Iraq is concerned.
Two key reasons can be most attributed to the invasion of iraq. Their names are Rumesfeld and Wolfowitz.
The former seems to have suggested Iraq be added to the "war on Terror' simply because Americans are more familiar with it than the obscure Afghanistan. There were, he argued clear strategic goals that could be met there and would sate the public's appetite for succes. Afghanistan was going to be a harder, more complicated struggle. Or so he thought. We've made a mess of it because we have of course failed to see it through and pulled out troops that could have been key in rooting out the forces in the country.
Wolfowitz is, I think, a true believer in human rights and had argued for regime change in Gulf War 1. He was over-ruled by pragamatists like Powell and Shwartzcoff, and Cheney. In any event Wolfowitz pushed hard for the war.

The rest of the problems have been caused by inept procecution of the effort, and needless opportunism, and cronism. I think the admin had sold itself the war as much as it sold us the public the war.

Again, there are plenty of reasons to find fault with the US policy. Plenty of things to complain about. That isn't however the case Hugh Caldwell is making. He approves of the mendacity inherent in a Galloway, and-because his support is so utterly absent any qualification- the policies of the soveriegn nation of Iraq under Saddam, his family and his thugs.

1279. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121639 by MaxD on February 3, 2008 at 9:38 pm

Hugh Caldwell said with his typical style:
There appear to be serious delusions at work in your post MaxD.

I'm not sure you managed to identify my delusions. I'm sure they were just so obvious that anyone could see them. But since it is just as clear that I have not yet been impressed with clear light of George Galloway would you please point out my delusions.

I have to say your defense of the wonderful sovereign nation of Iraq sounds much the same as Southern Confederate apolegetics. I once heard a guy moaning about the peculiar evils of the "agitator" Fredrick Douglas. He said, "He stirred up war for nothing. Slavery was doomed anyway because of the invention of the cotton gin. In ten years," he continued, "slavery would have ended." Never mind the boat load of errors in his statement I was caught by the inhumanity of his logic. So the slaves have to wait ten more years for their woes to end?
You sound in many ways like that guy.

You are right that the US is not a world decision maker. It is perfectly capapble of making decisions to defend itself, and others calling for its aid whether the international community agrees with the decision or not. POinting to the sanctions is not going to help you either. I agree they were not helpful, and certainly the Iraqi people suffered for it more than Saddam, but I think the world community-which did go along with the sanctions- agreed that it would be bad to allow Saddam too much wiggle room as he, and his plots would enourmously benefit from huge influxes of money.
This is actually an argument to go ahead and topple the guy, and let the country start over with international oversite. So whose soveriegnity are you defending? It isn't the people of Iraq's is it? They had lived under a boot heel.

1280. God vs. Gridiron

Comment #121627 by MaxD on February 3, 2008 at 9:10 pm

I would also just like to thank Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Danieal Dennet and the Flying spagetti monster right now though.
Thanks to guys the NY Giants were able to knock the New England Cheatricates on their collective asses.
(Maybe I should also thank George Carlin's Sun-god thingy?)

1281. God vs. Gridiron

Comment #121626 by MaxD on February 3, 2008 at 9:00 pm

I am not sure why the NFL is against the use of this game in Churches. It would probably generate revenue for them in the purchase of jersies and other NFL paraphanelia. The NFL though guard the use of its imagery more closely than any other sport I can think of (the UFC is coming close to this level of image control).
However, I can understand them not want to be associated with such crack pots. Its bad enough that over half the players point to the fucking sky after a win, or touchdown, or the gain of a yard. Why don't they ever point up when their own quarterback gets sacked, or when the other team scores? That is what I always wonder.

Why do they let sports bars get away with showing their games? I imagine its because a huge portion of the sponsorship comes from big alcohol comapnies.

However....
What is the knock on American Style football (and the attendent "I hate football players even more than the game" slur). Once the game is understood, one can actually find a great deal of strategy, grace and skill. At least there is a much of those qualities as there are to be found in any other sport.
I never played football, but I have come to understand the game quite alot. Lest you think I am a geek enjoying the bloodsport of others let me say this. I do Brazialian Jiu-jitsu, Submission Grappling and Judo. I also box. So...I am certainly not one of those people who see anythign wrong with slamming into someone else to score points.

It takes some getting used to, and study but it can be a rewarding game to watch more so I think than rugby anyway which is just so much running around a field.

1282. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121532 by MaxD on February 3, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Scooternyc said:
Inside the United States poverty is self-inflicted. Outside the United States you can lay that responsibility at the feet of those governments who will not allow freedom to their people.

Wow here is a statement of breathtaking inanity. Yes yes all those people who failed to be born to otherwise wealthy parents, who find themselves in neighborhoods of poverty, and failing schools clearly chose that shit. They "self-inflicted" that shit upon themselves. Totally obvious.

never mind the fact that proximity to wealth is the single most important factor in determining a person's future success. Why give all those people born in other countries a pass? They are certainly as much to blame as people born into poverty here.

I am no less an advocate for freedom than you. I'd like the government to stay out of most people's personal choices, bug it is also clear that many of social safety nets are, or at least can be good for society.

If everyone were born under the same circumstances, then certainly you could go much further with your libertarian idealism. But that just isn't the way world is, and does not reflect the patterns inherent in things like access to opportunity.

1283. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121525 by MaxD on February 3, 2008 at 2:38 pm

Scooternyc,
the problem with your view is that it seems to assume rational actors in all instances. We shouldn't help poor people because they are too stupid to stop having kids they can't feed. I'm not even a bleeding heart liberal but that seems to ignore not only the stochastic factors TonyA was discussing, but most of human psychology.

Sure poverty is a problem that will likely be with us for along time but I'd rather not base our policies on you ignorance. Have you ever worked in clinic, or other social service program? The fact is plenty of people who can't afford things but work hard at low paying jobs certainly haven't done anything to deserve no health care, or food etc. They are just minimally qualified to do any thing that makes them well off.
I myself have benefitted from lowly charity programs like college financial assistance that have made me and several of my friends more or less contributing members of society.
This is what annoys me about die-hard libertarians.

1284. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121507 by MaxD on February 3, 2008 at 2:14 pm

Hugh Caldwell said,
The chaos in Iraq is not democracy. A criminal invasion of a sovereign state, based on a pack of lies..."

This is not exactly the case, at all actually. The state of Iraq had been flouting several UN decrees and injunctions ever since the first gulf war. The UN had said action was necessary, had in fact agreed to action if the agreed upon terms were un-met. Saddam Hussain had not met themfor the better part of a decade, constantly obstructed weapons inspectors, repeatedly suborned terrorist attacks abroad had for a very long time attempted to aquire WMD.
It is true that his aspirations for WMD dropped off quite precipitously after the Clinton bombings. These infact, according to Thomas Ricks nearly crumbled the regime and had the region worried.
In any event Saddam had put his country in a posisiton it was in by his constant obstruction and out right violation of the terms agreed to at the end of Gulf War 1. The threat of WMD was certainly used to get the American public to go along with the war but it really was the least of the reasons to topple Saddam.
Were those violations reason to go to war? I'm not sure. Perhaps there were better options and waiting might have proved a better idea in the long run. Whatever that case may turn out to be it isn't the same as saying there were no good reasons for regime change in Iraq. If there were, the Clinton/Gore admin probably wouldn't have made that very eventuality part of their policy.
I recommend everyone read Rick's book by the way for a very comprehensive treatment on the rum up to war and all the bungles that have been made along the way.

1285. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121499 by MaxD on February 3, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Al-rawandi said:
By that logic, American revolutionaries were terrorists, more so because they targeted officers with snipers.

I think you may have mis-understood me. I think they are terrorists primarily because they attack other Iraqis. If they were strictly taking the fight to our military, then we would just have to call them an opposing force. But Galloway's "operations" misses that kind of distinction. He just praises these blood-thristy people for reasons I can't entirely fathom.
I tend to agree with Colin Powell who said we didn't need to do this now.
I think eventually the regime was something we were going to have to deal with, but precisely when was more of a question. Now it seems that leaving in the lets pull out tomorrow kind of way many anti-iraq war protesters seem to want us to would be much worse than staying.

1286. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #120239 by MaxD on February 1, 2008 at 10:55 am

I can't believe anyone in here thinks Galloway did well in the debate he had with Hitchens. Galloway was shrill, and moreto the point, a pointless buffoon. Galloway did better on the Bill Mahr show and made actual points. And why is no one else offended by the Galloway comment celebrating the 150 or so successful operations in iraq. He was talking about the insurgents who care not a whit for their fellow iraqis and in fact target them with much greater frequency than they do americans and (formerly) british troops. There are good arguments against the war in Iraq but Galloway doesn't often make them. He is a criminal, and dishonest man.

1287. A Letter From Hell

Comment #118741 by MaxD on January 30, 2008 at 10:28 pm

That isn't comic sans font they are using in hell is it? That will really piss me off.

Having watched the whole thing I have to marvel at the fact that Christians find the God evoked in snippets like this a being they actually want to be around. I mean do they ever say to themselves, "Hmmmm I'm not sure what josh ever did to deserve this flaming business. What kind of prick does something like this to clueless subjects?"

I guess it doesn't come up all that often. At least not often enough to make them alter their theology, certainly not the God is Just bit, in the slightest.

1288. A Letter From Hell

Comment #118735 by MaxD on January 30, 2008 at 10:12 pm

Its possible that Zak didn't want to tell Josh about his "personal relationship" with another man. How will Josh responsd to this same sex business.

1289. Shermer's 'Mind of the Market' Reviewed in L.A. Times

Comment #118605 by MaxD on January 30, 2008 at 7:34 pm

I find myself fine with capitalism in regulated form. I think the unregulated form was tried and it benefitted the wealthy and the powerful enourmously while ensuring that the common folk got totally fucked. People paid in company script and getting screwed left and right. Strike breakers and Pinkertons.
I am anxious to read Shermer's book, I loved his last foray into ethics (The Science of Good and Evil). However I am anxios to see what he thinks about these issues of the past. In part because I think he hasn't examined the idea that humans employ our behavioural strategies on various contingincies. WOuld we normally cheat? Probably not, but in a world in which anonymity is so common regulations have to take the place of tribal reciprocity.

1290. Heath Ledger Death: Baptist Group To Protest At Memorial

Comment #118589 by MaxD on January 30, 2008 at 7:22 pm

Brave...or Oscar hungry.

I think brave is probably the case. That was going to be big profile because Ang Lee directed it. And he ran the risk of being pidgeon-holed, and typecast.

But to the another poster who said actors tend to be rather screwed up. I think this is largely true. I used to do a lot of theater, through high school, and some college theater. Then I did lots of community theater. Actors tended to be the most neurotic bunch of people I've ever met. They are superstitious, and gullible. They are undependable off the set.

1291. Heath Ledger Death: Baptist Group To Protest At Memorial

Comment #118561 by MaxD on January 30, 2008 at 7:01 pm

Alcohol and decision making do not mix....

Now that can't be true.
Can it?

1292. Heath Ledger Death: Baptist Group To Protest At Memorial

Comment #118559 by MaxD on January 30, 2008 at 6:59 pm

Well I for one am sad he died.
The Dark Knight looks awesome. Now if they ever try to do the Joker again they'll have find a new actor.
That always messes things up.

1293. MySpace: No place for Atheists?

Comment #118525 by MaxD on January 30, 2008 at 6:23 pm

Wow, between these guys and youtube its a regular christian miracle that we get any forum at all...

1294. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #117810 by MaxD on January 29, 2008 at 5:29 pm

I am happy that Dawkins was so far seems to be the one who garned the biggest applause with his if you don't like it don't read it or don't go see it.

Man this is hard to watch with all these twits who just want to give their freedom of thought and expression.

1295. Loneliness Breeds Belief in Supernatural

Comment #116296 by MaxD on January 26, 2008 at 7:57 am

Sam Harris and the Cave.
I'm not sure why this seems like a good idea. He does like to go on a bit about the benefits of this. But I think he has yet to make his case.

More than this, I think the range of cognitive experience he is refering to is already had by most folk. They either fix their eye of wonder at some fake mystery like the trinity, or Jesus, or Mohammed, or the Buddha and find awe in that.

Or like most of us we find mystery and awe as we happen by it. It is at least mystery and awe we can see, or touch, and hear. I think it is what Carl Sagan was refering to in his work. I think it can be found in literature, and science and history but you have to do some real mental work to appreciate it, not just be able to endure "the eye-glazing" (Dennet's lovely phrase) innanities of mysterian faith-heads.
I am always confused by Harris's privilaging of extreme introspection. I'm not knocking meditation I'm sure its okay, and we all do some form of it anyway. I know I do to get into a zone prior to a competition. But a year?
In a cave?
Hasn't he heard of hanta virus?

1296. Loneliness Breeds Belief in Supernatural

Comment #116293 by MaxD on January 26, 2008 at 7:45 am

Chuck Colson, leader and founder of Prison Ministries (founded I think while he was doing time for Watergate), claims to win many inmates for Christ. And isn't the Nation of Islam always getting quality recruits to its cult of separation in the pen? I'm inclined to agree with the following:
A better group to study in this case, I think, would be people who are released back into society after having served their time in jail; they are most often objectively isolated, and many have difficulty trying to get back into society again--and of course, religion is there with arms wide open, with a man already on the inside starting the indoctrination. Although these people only seek a community and/or help to adapt, they are handed to a flock of deluded liars, and find themselves accepting the lies (viewed objectively) to reep the benefits of this community. Maybe that's not dangerous per se, but it's dishonest. It would be perfectly okay with me if they were honest about it at least, but that would ruin the potential control aspect I guess.

Prisons would be a great place to look at the birth of some forms of the religious inclination. Though the narrative of conversion is typically hyperbolic, self-serving and un-reliable you could try to survey new inmates immediately after conviction and follow them through the length of their incarceration.

1297. Loneliness Breeds Belief in Supernatural

Comment #116292 by MaxD on January 26, 2008 at 7:39 am

I made a link to poverty, lonliness and religiousity in a paper I wrote for one of my education classes. It wasn't greeted well. Any critique of religion-at least in my experience- treated poorly except when it is about interpretation. People can kill time endlessly debating what Jesus meant in this verse or that verse and everyone just thinks thats the best. To me it always seems like debating whether or not Hamlet was fat. Who fucking cares?
But if you try to discuss what drives people to religion you will, unless your reasons are flattering, meet angry responses instead of sensible discussion.

1298. Launch of 'Atheists in Foxholes' Book Anthology

Comment #116290 by MaxD on January 26, 2008 at 7:22 am

I hate to say it but I think Capt. Gridley is right on the money. About the money. I swear in next week and I have to tell you I was not impressed with the quality or the rationale of my fellow MEPSers. I am going in for a mixture of reasons (the bonuses are certainly one of them though as an officer less than an enlisted person) but one of them is to defend the constitution. The other is because I think the military needs people like me.
I suspect most of the people in here are degree holding and as such would-unless that degree is in social work- score highly on the ABSVAB test and be easy shoe-in's to Officer Candidate school. I wonder how many fewer Abu Gharib's we would have, and other fiasco's besides if our best and our brightest were giving the military their time. Instead of the poor, the uneducated, and the going nowhere. I don't mean to be knocking my fellow enlistees but many of the people I met yesterday have no other opportunity that will offer them half as much as the military can. Its a good deal provided you don't get dead.
Anyway that is the evolution of my opinion on the matter.

1299. Death Sentence for Afghan Student

Comment #116287 by MaxD on January 26, 2008 at 7:01 am

I think is one of the main reasons I think the war in Iraq was such a big mistake. While at some point it is likely we would have to have dealt with Saddam Hussain, it could have waited. while we used our manpower, and a much more united coalition to really settle Afghanistan. I mean turn it into a representative of the modern industrialized world.
I think Iraq has cost us huge opportunities.

1300. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #114801 by MaxD on January 22, 2008 at 9:37 pm

Al-rawandi
That may be why Kyoto was suggested, it was also why it was spared. If you vaporize the people they aren't in a great position to 'get' the message.

I think you have made some very excellent points. It may indeed have had a racial element. If you look at the propganda on both sides of the Pacific you will note a glaring tendency of both sides to engage in that reduction of enemies to sub-human forms. The Japanese had cartoons in which Americans were depicted as apish men utterly stupid. The same was done by our side.
I can't remember the historian, but I read a book many years ago that attempted to explain the violence, which seemed excessive even by the standards of WWII, between the Japanese and the US. I can't remember what the thesis was, but I think it speaks to your point about the American perspective on Japan and the Japanese being skewed. I would just agrue that it was skewed in light of that conflict. I am not saying it justified the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Or that there wasn't also an international subtext. But if you read the arguments about where to bomb most of it seems to center on the effect it will have on future combat in Japan.

Eisenhower is probably wrong according to many historians. Japan had sued for peace and had sent peace feelers out toward the Soviet Union as well. However they were demanding, and strings attached kinds of feelers. This wasn't something any country that had engaged in the kind of war they'd embarked on were entitled to make. They were told this, and given the allied offer. An offer they chose to refuse.

Now we also protected Japan and Hirohito from war crimes tribunals too. In an effort to stabilize the country. I'm not sure that was the correct path either. However I think it is deeper than your victor's justice remark and the notion that our foreign policy is laden with hypocrisy. It isn't that its not true some of the time, its just that everyone's foreign policy is that way.

I do agree with you that we might use hindsight to review these issues and discuss how they might have better been handled. That is the best way to use the lessons of history. I just think that your argument sounds something like this, "aww look what the US did to poor kind Japan. What heartless bastards!" While at the same time neglecting the other arguments being made at the time. Having said that I dont' think I am as yet convinced by the arguments for their use.

What I do know is that much of our efforts in post war Japan have yeilded a long friendship among the peoples of the two countries. With minor tiffs among our two intelligence gathering bodies over that Om Shinrikyo business.