Haas/Intel Partnership Making Waves - Raising Questions About “Privatization”
Right on the heels of a partnership deal with Yahoo!, Haas has partnered up with Intel to provide Haas faculty with the ability to train tech-saavy entrepreneurs. While there are no ostensible financial benefits, business relationships made in this process may continue to promote what Boalt Dean Christopher Edley and Chanellor Birgeneau refer to as a “privatization” of public education - or, relieving the reliance of public institutions on public funding.
In the short-term, programs like these do benefit the university, given the current budget situation. And ties between the education community and the business community can serve to create new products and to help students find jobs. But, is anyone else concerned with a possible dependancy on the private sector? There are a two main points to be mindful of…
1) Donations = influence. Money talks, and the school is being forced to listen. Right now, a few million dollars will rename a department. I really don’t care if the EECS department is renamed the Yahoo! Minor Leagues, but when corporate leaders begin dictating the curriculum, the conflict of ethics vs. finances will heat up. Last year’s debate over the public policy department and tobacco research may just be the tip of the iceberg.
2) Different philosophies: public good v. consumer good. Generally, public education is perceived to be a public good - you get more than a dollar’s worth in fees, tuitions, etc. But a consumer good philosophy could lead to a dollar paid/dollar value system, in which either tuition increases to meet the value and/or quality decreases to meet the price. It remains to be seen whether the UC system is going to be offering an education to the public or selling one.
If the public isn’t willing to pay for the education, screw ‘em. “Public education” is nothing more than the public donating money to a school. If they aren’t going to do it, they don’t get to bitch about what the school does when it starts getting money from someone else, or what it has to do to maintain that money.
The state has to figure out they don’t get what they don’t pay for.
Comment by Anonymous — August 6, 2005 @ 5:08 pm
The state doesnt get to bitch about something that they didnt pay for. However, the state does get to bitch about conflict of interests- the state may not fund the university properly, but that doesnt mean that it endorses a research environment dominated by a corporation, that may in the end seek to influence the university and its research (cough cough….Ignacio Chapela). The state is paying for a university that serves the public good by providing un-biased research and education. The state isnt bitching about what they didnt pay for - they are bitching about what they DID pay for, and aren’t necessarily getting. Not that Berkeley is a bastion of un-biased-ness - I just dont think a public university should connect itself so closely with its sponsers.
Although it would be pretty awesome if the Woman’s Studies department was renamed “The Spearmint Rhino Center for gender balancing”
Comment by Anon — August 7, 2005 @ 1:22 am
“We’ve given you not enough to run a public university, and now you go getting funding from other sources? We’re being ripped off!”
Somehow, I don’t buy it.
Comment by Beetle — August 7, 2005 @ 2:48 am
If the state wants an unbiased public good they bloody well pay for it. Not just contribute, foot the whole bill. The University gets to be biased to the extent they have to grovel to industry to get the rest of the money they need. Now Berkeley may be more biased than industry is paying for, but its the state’s fault for opening the door to begin with. If they don’t like it, buy out industry’s share in the University.
Comment by Anonymous — August 7, 2005 @ 3:01 am
private > public
public is getting smashT by budget cuts so good that private sector is stepping in to fill the void. Its dumbT to trust the government over education funding, Haas is doing the right thing.
“smashT”
Comment by smashT — August 7, 2005 @ 7:20 am
Correct. This is the right way to go.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — August 7, 2005 @ 5:48 pm
All this says to me is that our wonderful Governor needs to open his eyes and see what his dereliction to his commitment to education is doing to “the great equalizer.” When education becomes dominated by private interests, there becomes less incentive to provide to those without deep pockets. I’m not saying we’re there yet, but it’s a slippery slope.
But then again, the Governor’s eyes probably are wide open, and this is probably exactly what he wants to happen.
I don’t have a problem with private donations. It’s like in politics, I don’t really mind people supporting candidates with financial contributions. But huge sums of money contaminate the process and slowly errode the original intent of our well-intentioned systems. Let’s face the reality: large sums of money become bribes– in politics, in education, in business. Everywhere. Money talks. Profit motive can be a good thing in certain circumstances, but when the obsession with money overruns our leaders… you know the rest of the story.
The bottom line is just that we need to be very careful.
Comment by Jason O. — August 8, 2005 @ 5:37 am
lol kid, you still dreaming the liberal dream.
keep the rhetoric coming, its cute. slipper slope, danger ahahahah
son, the UC system got smashT by the irresponsible spending binge your boy Davis and his cronies engaged in. Now its time to reap the benefits.
The private sector is making up the shortfall, stop whining and being pissT.
“ultra liberal smashT”
Comment by smashT — August 8, 2005 @ 9:00 am
Don’t even try to patronize me. Thanks.
Comment by Jason O. — August 8, 2005 @ 9:46 am
kid is pissT cause he got smashT in public
cwy some more
“smashT x2″
Comment by smashT — August 8, 2005 @ 9:47 am
LOL. I’ll just keep laughing. But I have real work to go do so I’m not going to sit here and go tit-for-tat, because I don’t have time to sit in front of calstuff all morning.
I’m going to go lobby against SB 51 now, you can keep insulting me if you’d like, it doesn’t make a bit of difference to me.
Comment by Jason O. — August 8, 2005 @ 9:48 am
Oh wow kid has some real life lobbying to do, damn smashT. I wonder if grown up legislators give a shit when some punkT little kid tells them what to do. prob not. go waste ur time son
uve been smashT on the callstuff forums now u will be smashT irl by a dumbT legislator.
“smashT crushT”
Comment by smashT — August 8, 2005 @ 9:51 am
man-twaT
Comment by yodi — August 8, 2005 @ 10:39 am
“man-twaT”
another pissT kid. keep it coming so original
“smashTing pissT kids”
Comment by smashT — August 8, 2005 @ 11:27 am
P Stoup ist ein grosses Weibchen!
Comment by yodi — August 8, 2005 @ 12:18 pm
While it’s fun and all to say “Well, it’s the governor’s fault,” that isn’t a solution to the problem. The fact that education should be getting more funding doesn’t pay salaries.
Comment by Beetle — August 8, 2005 @ 2:37 pm
its funny how many of the moron fuckwits who are totally behind this “private funding of public education” idea run around bitching and moaning about how fucked up it is that CMES is funded by the saudis.
so are we for sale or aren’t we? inquiring chinese and saudi minds want to know…
Comment by mano — August 8, 2005 @ 2:58 pm
ultimately, public education exists to produce a workforce and that workforce exists to produce profits for rich people/corporations. so the rich people/corporations need trained workers, and so they will always fund public education one way or another (that doesnt mean they will fund it well, or how, say, working people would like to see it funded).
the primary question facing us here is whether we want to a) kick them in the nuts and just tax the money out of em, and tell em to fuck off when they try to meddle in the curriculum, or b) suck up to em, jump through hoops, do little “favors”.. and get the same (or probably less) money with strings attached.
and i know all you little california patriots love sucking that rich genitalia, i know you love it so much you can even see yourself doing it for free, but you ever stop to think what if what you have in your mouth belongs to a saudi? a chinese person? george soros or some other rich “liberal”?
PS: george bush sucks sauid cock. dontcha wanna be like george?
Comment by mmmmmm — August 8, 2005 @ 3:13 pm
The problem wasn’t that CMES was funded by the Saudis, but that the Saudi funds had links to terrorism. Just to be clear here.
Comment by anon03 — August 8, 2005 @ 4:22 pm
so, by “terrorism” you mean opinions that you disagree with, such as being opposed to israeli and US policies?
but ok, lets pretend you actually know what you are talking about, and CMES is being funded by someone who gave $ to actual “terrorists” — the “bad” kind of terrorist that you hate, as opposed to the good kind of terrorist that you like.
so then let me get this straight.
Your argument: CMES’ saudi donors gave funds to “terrorists”. This is “bad”. Therefore, CMES shouldnt accept any funds from those “bad” donors.
So how do you deal with the fact that the US Government gave funds to “terrorists” (in some cases, the same ones, e.g. afghanistan, e.g. iran-contra, etc). Is your position that Cal should refuse to accept any federal funding because it has “links to terrorism”?
Just to be clear here.
Comment by mano — August 8, 2005 @ 5:05 pm
lol mano get a fukin clue m@n. no one cares about ur ultra progressive bs, your just another punkT graduate student living of the state. no real job, no real producitivity, just another hungry mouth eating up california’s resources. get a clue. smashT son
to tat other dude mmmmmmmm, its better to sukk rich genitelia than to suk poor genitelia. smashT
who else?
“ultra progressives smashT”
Comment by smashT — August 8, 2005 @ 5:33 pm
mano,
it’s simple. unlike you, I don’t see the US government as terrorist or supporting terrorism. The Saudis, on the other hand, fund terrorism around the world. I am waiting for a moral equivalence argument between whatever the US/Israeli government is doing/has done over the last 200 years to what the terrorists did on 9/11, in Iraq, Beslan, Bali, London, Madrid, Israel. After all the “bad” terrorists caused the “good” terrorism. right, mano? Are you one of those Bush=Hitler types running around Berkeley, trying to start a revolution?
Seriously, if you hate this country so much, why not move, mano, to say Saudi Arabia, where you’ll enjoy a lot more rights from the “good” terrorists than you ever did here, the country that’s the root of all evil. Or, better yet, to Palestine, whose people you love so much.
Comment by anon03 — August 8, 2005 @ 5:51 pm
uh, so what part of “the US gave money to the same people that the saudis gave money to” did you fail to understand? the point is simple enough: you are a walking headwound… and your lack of reading comprehension underscores the point… a giant, gaping fucking headwound.
Comment by mano — August 8, 2005 @ 6:34 pm
oh, and perhaps you’ve heard how israel gave funds to hamas, just FYI, another one to file under “its a ‘bad’ thing when the saudis do it but a ‘good’ thing when ‘we’ do it”.
Comment by mano — August 8, 2005 @ 6:43 pm
mano, your hatred for this country is so blind, you don’t see the difference between the US and Al Queda. While in an honest debate, I would be willing to discuss all America’s faults, and there are plenty, including the ones you mentioned, I won’t do it with you because your moral relativism does not allow you to distinguish between fundamentalist Islam and democracy.
Comment by alum03 — August 8, 2005 @ 6:47 pm
haha. you will refuse to acknowledge the truth because i dont like america. brilliant. if that isnt the essence of your moronic political agenda, i dont know what is. thanks for stating it so clearly.
PS: this doesnt make you any less of a headwound, you know.
Comment by mano — August 8, 2005 @ 6:55 pm
Mano, for once I find that you have merit. The US government funds these poitnless, costly wars around the world, and some countries may see us as terrorists (even if we aren’t, it’s not helping our image int he middle east). Schools should not receive federal funds, if everyone is so worried about the bias and influence that corporations have over education. Is it so hard to believe that money from the government means that the government is able to tell us what to believe? What’s worse, having private companies giving UC money and telling people what to teach or the government doing similar indoctrination and curbing individual thought? Either way, it’s socialism.
Comment by DTI — August 8, 2005 @ 6:58 pm
i don’t refuse to acknowledge the truth, but am simply stating that I won’t engage with you on a discussion about everything wrong with the Western civilization. see the difference, or is it to difficult for you to understand? looks like your reading comprehension is lacking, not mine, mano. I don’t doubt for a second that your library of anti-west examples of “terrorism” is well populated with facts. but, mano, what do you think of Islamic fundamentalism? Surely, you are an advocate of human rights, social justice, women’s right? Any thoughts on this particular topic in the context of fundamentalist Islam? And please, keep your third-grade name calling coming, it’s actually pretty amusing
.
Comment by alum03 — August 8, 2005 @ 7:02 pm
The federal government chooses to fund education, or private corporations choose to fund it. Either way, it’s socialism because it restricts individual thought.
Comment by DTI — August 8, 2005 @ 7:04 pm
dumbass. you are the one saying that the school shouldnt take saudi money. i am pointing out that your stance is hypocritical. thats all.
my stance on the US is not relevant to whether you are a dumbass. but here it is: i dont like it. my stance on religious fundamentalism (including islamic fundamentalism) is not relevant to whether you are a dumbass. but here it is: i dont like it either. now that we have that over with, you are still a fucking dumbass. and it is amusing
Comment by mano — August 8, 2005 @ 7:12 pm
wow, mano, “I don’t like it” is all you could come up with? And you’re studying for a Ph.D.? And you’re calling me a dumbass? Hahaha! this is just great.
Comment by alum03 — August 8, 2005 @ 7:21 pm
DTI, mano is a socialist.
Comment by alum03 — August 8, 2005 @ 8:30 pm
Mano, one of your problems is and always will be that the causes you support inevitably are increadibly repressive. The PA has had a far worse record on human rights than israel, however bad you claim israel’s record to be. the US has funded terrorists, but at least has acknowledged error. you seem to justify terrorism with some kind of ‘well, the US funded them, so they can’t help but be terrorists’. where is the personal choice? where is the statement that it’s wrong to be a suicide bomber in the name of some fundamentalist ideology that both you and i think is despicable? there is no black and white here, and if your point is to highlight US (and israeli) flaws, your points are well taken. but where do we go from there? is the answer really to sit back and let these racist, misogynist murders do what they want? how can that really fit in your worldview? i can’t help but think you’re being cynical beyond reason, and that deep down you hate these murders in london, NYC and tel aviv as much as i do.
Comment by Josh — August 8, 2005 @ 9:11 pm
I also ask this with all respect: really, how long does it take to graduate in optometry? you’ve been here since i have, and i’m done with my BA next year…
Comment by Josh — August 8, 2005 @ 9:17 pm
Josh: to be fair, it took transfer student Hoku Jeffrey 7 or 8 years to graduate with a BA in ethnic studies. I’d imagine the optometry graduate program is a lot harder than ethnic studies. But still, mano, writing on a blog isn’t going to produce social change.
Comment by DTI — August 8, 2005 @ 10:31 pm
Mano does not study optometry; he studies vision science, and his focus is optical illusions and the relevant psychology. I think.
Comment by Ehud — August 8, 2005 @ 11:09 pm
josh, my point was simply stated and relevant to the topic of the post. the point has nothing to do with israel. the point is, if you are going to be in favor of private funding, you cant really pick and choose which private funding you are going to allow.
now, ucb is full of the high-density morons. the ones that dont even realize there is a contradiction in supporting private funding of public education and then demanding accountability from CMES for “tainted” private saudi funding. folks like alum03: vegetables who through some miracle managed to eek out a degree.
anyway, on the topic of Israel, i dont think you know enough about what i believe to articulate my position for me. stick to what i have actually written if you want to have a discussion about it.
PS: i walked in may, ill file in sept, ehud is right about what i study…
Comment by mano — August 9, 2005 @ 12:12 am
DTI: writing on a blog wont change Pat Buchanan’s diapers either. shouldn’t you get on that?
Comment by mano — August 9, 2005 @ 12:14 am
Wow, you’re even an asshole to people who agree with you. I hope you enjoy your one-man crusade to save the world.
Comment by DTI — August 9, 2005 @ 12:21 am
DTI: hmmm, well i took the hoku comparison as a dig (a pretty good one at that) and responded in kind. im pretty nice in person if i dont actively dislike you. ask Ben.
Comment by mano — August 9, 2005 @ 12:26 am
Ah. I hope no offense was taken then.
Comment by DTI — August 9, 2005 @ 1:15 am
yes, mano, of course, I disagree with you and you assume that I “through some miracle managed to eek out a degree”. Make it two, with high honors in both. thanks.
Comment by alum03 — August 9, 2005 @ 7:28 am
mano-twaT
Comment by yodi — August 9, 2005 @ 10:09 am
Yeah, Mano and I started out a little rough, but I soon found it’s easier to make friends with honey than with vinegar… or with stupid signatures at the end of your post.
“trashT”
Comment by Ben N. — August 9, 2005 @ 10:32 am
Ben, mano doesn’t like conservatives because they disagree with him and therefore they’re all dumbasses. mano doesn’t like liberals who disagree with him and therefore they’re also dumbasses. So if you want to be friends with mano, you better agree with his progressive views, or you’ll be called a dumbass. You call it honey, I call it kissing ass. And if you want to be fair, mano’s posted a lot more garbage on this blog than any stupid signatures at the end of a post. And I am not talking about his arguments, either.
Comment by anon03 — August 9, 2005 @ 10:55 am
haha. mr. dumbass double major is upset. but hey, dont try to make this about other people.
all i pointed out is the contradiction… most of your “conservative” “patriot” friends were smart enough to pretend that i wasnt talking about them. but you werent. you decided to champion the contradiction! so, now you have outed yourself as a total dumbass.
Comment by mano — August 9, 2005 @ 11:33 am
mano makes a false claim. mano gets called on it. mano doesn’t like it when he’s wrong. mano continues his childish insults to make himself feel better.
Comment by alum03 — August 9, 2005 @ 11:41 am
To say that mano and I agree on everything would be a pretty inaccurate statement. Sometimes, it’s an inaccurate statement to say that we agree on anything.
hmm, i kind of like this tagline thing.
“jackT up”
Comment by Ben N. — August 9, 2005 @ 11:54 am
Mano,
Powerful alliances facilitate social change, and you have to have a majority to get anything done in this country. If you alienate and infuriate both conservatives and liberals, who the hell do you have left? If you want to succeed, the answer is to convince people your positions are valid and worthy, instead of calling people weiners and dumbasses. I understand progressives and paleoconservatives are both against the war but they constitute a small percentage of the country with their identities. Work on facilitating change by convincing liberals and conservatives to join your cause, and not insult them to the point of them never joining your cause.
Comment by DTI — August 9, 2005 @ 1:14 pm
“hmm, i kind of like this tagline thing.
“jackT up””
damn a fanboi already
“calstuff forum smashT”
Comment by smashT — August 9, 2005 @ 2:11 pm
DTI: my blog comments are unrelated to my efforts to achieve social change. however, you have raised an interesting point, but it needs to be said that it is your opinion, and not a hard truth:
“the answer”? i dont think so. instead i think this expression basically sums up the reason the left is so stunted in this country.
i think folks need to go lighter on the “convincing” and heavier on the polarization. especially with the public opinion trenches where they are today.
right now, spurring fellow travellers to take action is where the answer is “at”. i think people are swayed/convinced/won over mainly through by a process of attributing powerful changes/successes/victories to a ideology. if you game the polarization right, by the time your enemies notice you, you have already won. if you dont game it right, you lose. and this has always been the case.
you sound like an elementary school social studies teacher. if this statement were true, i wouldnt be in the business of social change. if it were true, this country would be a very, very, VERY different place. and in fact, this country was practically founded on the opposite principle. fucking hell, even the american revolution was fought by a minority interest.
Comment by mano — August 9, 2005 @ 2:11 pm
“I also ask this with all respect: really, how long does it take to graduate in optometry? you’ve been here since i have, and i’m done with my BA next year…”
damn, mano smashT again.
“smashT”
Comment by smashT — August 9, 2005 @ 2:14 pm
“i think folks need to go lighter on the “convincing” and heavier on the polarization. especially with the public opinion trenches where they are today.”
lol fool. this proves how dumbT u are. u polarize 90% of teh country against u and that somehow produces social change? give me a break kid smashT. your bad forum warrioring is producing few converts son.
“crushT”
Comment by smashT — August 9, 2005 @ 2:16 pm
damn, calstuff trollT again.
Comment by mano — August 9, 2005 @ 2:26 pm
“damn, calstuff trollT again.”
imitation is teh sincerest form of flattery. smashT
thanks to my fanclub. i got some decoder rings ready for distribution
“fans smashT”
Comment by smashT — August 9, 2005 @ 4:56 pm
please don’t tell me that mano is Chris Cantor, cuz that explains everything.
Comment by anonymous — August 10, 2005 @ 3:22 pm
And you don’t want things explained?
Comment by Beetle — August 10, 2005 @ 9:08 pm
“If you want to succeed, the answer is to convince people your positions are valid and worthy, instead of calling people weiners and dumbasses.”
————–
this is so untrue. Addressing this even at the simplest level, it is well demonstrated that in electoral politics, the candidate or initiative funders who use negative television ads always win, while the side that honestly and kindly argues its perspective will lose in a landslide. Can you show me any example of where people merely arguing the truth have achieved anything? Look at all the civil rights struggles. Did nonwhite people get the vote in 1964 by just holding up some signs pointing out the injustice, and then the gov’t said “damn, they have a point! Why didn’t this occur to us before?”
Comment by c — August 10, 2005 @ 10:05 pm
c: lol, that was brilliant. sorry DTI, but your points were just hella off.
Comment by mano — August 11, 2005 @ 4:04 pm
also, to all of you who believe that “you have to have a majority to get anything done in this country”…
the polls are now showing pretty that there is an antiwar majority in this country now…so thats a check. now what do we do to stop the war? click heels three times and wish really hard? vote for a demoncraT? lolT.
Comment by mano — August 11, 2005 @ 4:09 pm
“the polls are now showing pretty that there is an antiwar majority in this country now…so thats a check. now what do we do to stop the war? click heels three times and wish really hard? vote for a demoncraT? lolT.”
i suppose in teh crazy world of berkeley insanity the thousand ppl who share your viewpoints will be enuf to change teh world. keep on tkaing teh drugs dude. smashT
keep up the imitation fanboiT i like it.
“smashT”
Comment by smashT — August 11, 2005 @ 4:17 pm
dude, i know you likeTiT.
i know that the antiwar majority in this country is mostly a bunch of wieners who wont do shit right now, and that is my point… people who think opinion polls are the be all and end all of politix have their heads shoved up their asses.
also, just top be clear, half of the US is over 100 million. with those numbers actually motivated to act (as opposed to what they are doing now, which is nothing useful) we could have the troops back by 2006.
hope that helps you understanT
xoxoT
Comment by mano — August 11, 2005 @ 4:42 pm
what anti-war majority son? there was an election in 2004, Bush got over 50% smashT
whats gonna happen in 2006? democraps will be smashT again. how are u gonna get teh troops back? another pipe dream from crazy berkeley punkT kids.
the troops will come home when teh job is done not when punkT berkeley kids who live of the govt say. get of welfare son.
the insurgency in iraq will be crushT.
“punkT kid smashT again”
Comment by smashT — August 11, 2005 @ 5:31 pm
People may be technically against the war, but they aren’t passionately against it. You all have to incorporate something into your models. Its not a matter of percentages but intensity of that percentage. In mano’s revolution example, you had a third for leaving England, a third for staying and a third that didn’t care one way or the other. The third that wanted to leave cared much, much more than the third that wanted to stay. Passion is a force multiplier.
More than half may want to leave Iraq, but when multiplied by how much they care, that unit is less than unit gotten when you multiply the percentage of those who want to stay times how much they want to stay.
Comment by Anonymous — August 11, 2005 @ 5:41 pm
anon:
well i dont see anyone in BCR rushing to sign up with the army.
the half that want to stay in Iraq certainly arent passionate about it either. the point is that this is a society full of insipid wieners, wieners all around.
the point being, i did incorporate all this into my models, which is why im depressed and railing about the juxtaposition of really good public opinion developments and total inaction by the antiwar “movement”.
i thought this should be obvious. you did notice i call everybody wiener all the time? its funny because its true.
Comment by mano — August 11, 2005 @ 5:53 pm
mano, and what are you doing to help pull troops out of Iraq by 2006? and running around berkeley trying to look tough doesn’t do shit, btw. what a weiner.
Comment by anonymous — August 11, 2005 @ 5:55 pm
plenty, anon, actually, but we dont need me to brag about the activism i do. my point regards a masses of people, a movement, if you will. its not about me or my ego. if you cant reason on that level, then theres no point engaging in this discussion.
oh, and i’m agreeing with Anonymous on the basic facts, not sure if you are a different poster or not…
…and its “wIEner” bTw.
Comment by mano — August 11, 2005 @ 6:02 pm
ok, then don’t jump on anyone who supports the Iraq war by arguing that they should either join the army or shut up, cuz it’s not about them or their ego.
you sound like you know what to do to be effective in making a difference. so i am asking what it is that you think is effective, that’s all. do you think groups like SJP and ISM are effective in achieving their cause, i.e. destroying the apartheid state of Israel?
Comment by anonymous — August 11, 2005 @ 6:54 pm
groups like ism and sjp have mission statements. you can read them. if you think the mission is a big secret from the rest of the world, and the SJP or ISM mission statement is a cover, then youll just have to go on believing that, because im not going to be able to convince you otherwise.
i dont see why i cant jump on BCR (a group of wieners) who dont join up. i DO jump on left groups for being wieners too. i was just jumping on them. so i apply the criticism to both sides. where is the problem?
as i said before if u believed in the war, join the freaking army. if u want to end the war, take direct action to end it. im in the latter camp, and to the extent that i am asking others to take direct action to end the war, im right there with them.
Comment by mano — August 11, 2005 @ 7:34 pm
are you guys the ones who put Mano on the stupid David Horowitz leftist smear list? You seem a bit focused on him as the single campus leftist. My friend said there was another Berkeley entry for someone listed only for attending the same temple as Michael Lerner. There are a ton of more prominent people in Berkeley, often off campus, who are very big names in leftism, that you all completely forgot. And I’m always surprised at these fairly major artists in drawing, film, comics, music etc. discoverthenetwork doesn’t have Markos Moulitsas who only runs one of the biggest political blogs in the country and appears on TV, or Judith Butler whose books you couldn’t even understand with your comparatively puny reading comprehension, or a whole list of other on and off-campus activists.
Comment by cp — August 11, 2005 @ 7:47 pm
great, so i was asking you what you mean by taking direct action.
. i hope you see that and stop making the childish argument. now if you actually went to iraq/palestine as a human shield or better yet fought for the iraqis/palestinians, like some progressives are doing, then at least your argument wouldn’t be so hypocriticals.
once again, running around berkeley raising noise trying, blocking wheeler, sather gates or whatever else is not the same as joining the army and fighting in iraq. it’s a pussy version of it in terms of the amount of danger you subject yourself to for the cause. sure you could get arrested by berkeley cops, big fucking deal
regarding sjp, on several occasions, i saw its members chanting “palestine will be free from the river to the sea” during protests. not sure why members of a group would chant something that contradicts their mission statement. if you know anything about berkeley sjp, you should know that many of its members oppose israel’s existence period. it’s time to stop being pc, mano, and start telling the truth.
Comment by anonymous — August 11, 2005 @ 7:48 pm
hypocritical is saying one thing and doing another.
saying: “you go fight a war that i want fought, but i wont fight it” is hypocritical. most BCR wieners are just as able to fight in iraq as any of the kids being sent over.
now direct action and activism may be wiener, according to you. to some extent, yeah, most of it is not a big deal, not a matter of life or death, at least. id say activism is a sacrifice in a lot of other ways, but you wouldnt appreciate those unless you did it for a while. but the point is direct action and activism is definitely not hypocritical.
BCR is asking people to make a sacrifice they ARENT willing to make. im asking people to make sacrifices i AM willing to make. may not make me a hero but at least im not a coward.
as for sjp and what its group members believe, you are trying to drag me into a debate. im happy to have this, but im not going to mix it up with the BCR = cowards debate. maybe andy can start a new thread for you to wail about israels “right to exist”.
Comment by mano — August 11, 2005 @ 8:45 pm
i love how radical and controversial it is when i suggest that cowardice is actually a bad thing.
Comment by mano — August 11, 2005 @ 9:05 pm
“i love how radical and controversial it is when i suggest that cowardice is actually a bad thing.”
put teh draft back in son. ill go smashT teh terrorists and the punkT kids like u
“smashT”
Comment by smashT — August 11, 2005 @ 9:20 pm
mano, you’re missing the point. it’s hypocritical to ask someone who supports the war to put his life on the line to fight it and at the same time to oppose it and not put your life on the line to stop it. so if BCR is hypocritical, so are you. BCR may be full of shit, but at least they are not the ones disrupting classes, harrasing passerby students who don’t give a fuck, and blocking traffic on campus, you know who i am talking about. and that’s what you call activism? where did your bullshit campaign to divest from israel get you? was 1 cent divested by UC? let’s run around and get some more signatures of faculty and students, like that’s gonna achieve jack shit. these methods are dumb and change nothing.
what surprises me, mano, is with all your talk about polarization and getting things done, you cannot even bring yourself to acknowledge the simple truth that many SJPers, leadership included, support the establishment of a palestinian state from the river to the sea. since when are you so pc as to hide behind their bullshit mission statement?
Comment by anonymous — August 11, 2005 @ 9:49 pm
Mano has been, and always will be, a pissant.
Comment by Petty Bourgeois — August 11, 2005 @ 10:29 pm
you cant fight a war and not risk your life. the two are inseparable. being pro-war is not like having a favorite hockey team. pro-war is pro-somebody-risking-their-life. there is no way to be pro-war and not ask someone to kill or die. BCR is pro-war, hence they are pro-somebody-risking-their-life, but since their own lives are off limits, they are hypocrites and cowards. anti-war on the other hand, is not pro-somebody-risking-their-life. your little logical obfuscation doesnt hold up.
Comment by mano — August 11, 2005 @ 10:49 pm
Not to get caught up in details, but BCR wants the military to go to war. The military is composed of people who wanted to join, knowing they would have to do military type stuff. What does the military do? It goes to war. It kills people and breaks things. That’s what they volunteered for. BCR types are just suggesting who/what the military should kill/break. You would have an argument if BCR was making Joe n’ Ed down the street join the military to do their bidding without going themselves.
Comment by Anonymous — August 12, 2005 @ 3:55 am
how slow are you? It’s pretty easy to demonstrate that the army isn’t just composed of people who were interested in guns and military stuff. Unless this personality trait were directly linked on the same chromosome with another gene that makes you really poor, then the military would be filled with an equal distribution from all socioeconomic classes. However, it really is not at all.
Moreover, the people at home are not asked to sacrifice one iota to support the Iraq troops. Even with high gas prices, people aren’t curtailing driving, and oil imports were at a record level in june
Comment by cp — August 12, 2005 @ 7:14 am
hmm, maybe you are right.
maybe BCR is doing the military a favor.
maybe the right way to think about those people in the military is that they are a bunch of goons who are in it for shits and giggles, instead of a bunch of people who will make a sacrifice — as a last resort — to serve society.
no, maybe they’re bored if they arent out there killing and dying. thanks, BCR, for helping these troglodytes out by giving them something to do.
thanks, anon, for helping people understand how BCR sorts really feel about the military.
Comment by mano — August 12, 2005 @ 7:32 am
oh, did you forget about building soccer fields and winning hearts and minds? spreading democracy to the four corners of the world?
you ever think maybe you republicon wieners are sending confusing messages to your “hapless goons” in the military?
Comment by mano — August 12, 2005 @ 7:38 am
mano, you moron, i’ll say it for one last time so maybe even you can understand. should everybody who supported the war in Afghanistan have gone to Afghanistan to fight? (BTW, did you support invading Afghanistan, or are you against war in principle? cuz if you did support the invasion, you should be there, by your own argument). WW2? Or is it your opposition to this particular war that’s driving your childish argument. If you stick by your argument for other wars, I have no further question, as essentially you’d like the civilian population supporting a war to join the military, which, in case of most US-fought wars, including Iraq prior to invasion, would mean 10s of millions of people joining the army. what will the army do with 10s of millions of soldiers, you moron? this is not fucking China. to think that a person as intelligent as you doesn’t see the stupidity of his own argument…
Comment by anonymous — August 12, 2005 @ 7:46 am
anonymous, i think the military would love it if they had that kind of interest. then they could pick and choose, instead of trolling for teenage mallrats.
the reason to “support” a war is in response to a perceived threat to your life or liberty. war is not something we should just do because it seems like a good idea to some politicians. and if you perceive your life or liberty to be in danger, but are not willing to fight to protect it, you are a coward.
yes, EVERYONE who supports ANY war ANYWHERE should be willing to fight. willing. get it? w-i-l-l-i-n-g to fight. if they arent needed, then they arent needed, and they dont fight.
BCR is not willing to fight, but its not a case of them not being needed. the military is hurting for want of recruits, and the inability to recruit even the strongest supporters of the war to fight says something about how few people think this war is necessary.
Comment by mano — August 12, 2005 @ 7:58 am
i get it, you don’t. did you perceive a threat to your life or liberty after 9/11 and support invading Afghanistan? yes or no. if no, you’re a moron. if yes, did you recruit with the army? if yes, good for you. if no, you’re fucking hypocrite.
and what’s the shit about any war anywhere? give me a fucking break, man, you sound like a jihadi
.
Comment by anonymous — August 12, 2005 @ 8:58 am
anon: no and no.
Comment by mano — August 12, 2005 @ 9:04 am
anonymous - people behaved totally differently during WW2. I don’t know why you are citing that as an example. Everyone *was* rushing to sign up. My dad couldn’t get in at 17 because his family had brought in a faith healer when he broke his arm so it didn’t set right, so he went to the merchant marines. The women who were excluded from service, and older people strongly looked down on young men who didn’ sign up. Women and others at home all participated in rationing that wasn’t even necessary and victory gardens and recycling drives and economically donated a lot, *plus* they had something like a 90% tax rate on the top bracket (the opposite of what Bush just did for the upper class recently - and refer to the Chronicle op-ed today about the high priced 2nd homes in Tahoe- that’s where the money went).
Comment by cp — August 12, 2005 @ 9:09 am
cp, you’re absolutely right about WW2. mano qualified his argument by stating that BCR kids have to be *willing* to fight, not actually fight. his argument is still full of shit, because BCR kids are not the only ones who supported the war prior to invasion, so mano shouldn’t single them out. by his logic, SJPers who chant “palestine should be free from the river to the sea” should go to palestine and fight against the occupation, but all these weiners do is look tough in berkeley by building mock check points in sproul. such tough rhetoric, and so little action. sound familiar, mano?
mano, if you’re a pacifist, just say so. you won’t find many followers these days, outside of berkeley of course. most americans, democrats, republicans and even many progressives, believe that the war in Afghanistan was justified. if you believe in intifada, you should be in palestine. if you believe in the chechen cause, you should be in chechnya. but you weiner are in berkeley, still, so STFU.
Comment by anonymous — August 12, 2005 @ 9:30 am
im not a pacifist by any stretch of the imagination. im quite in favor of self defense. i am not in favor of anyone, US or UN, policing the world.
the logic BCR types use to suggest that americans should go “liberate” (or “police”, take your pick) other peoples of the world is the same logic you are now using to suggest that people in sjp should go fight the intifada.
if you go to palestine, and ask palestinians what americans can do to help, they will tell you. many will tell you they dont need or want americans there, they will tell you they want americans to stop their govt from aiding the israelis at the levels that, and in the way that aide is being given. all the palestinians want is a more level playing field, and they will fight their own struggles for liberation. they dont need college kids to come fight the intifada.
(to contrast this, ask our military if they want you to fight their war in iraq)
in general, i differentiate solidarity from self-defense. when i feel i am in danger, i am willing to fight to defend myself. when others are defending themselves, if i believe their cause is justified, i support their right to defend themselves. that certainly doesnt obligate me to fight their war for or with them. doesnt preclude it either, but if i do fight, it should be because they also want me to. and that is called solidarity. the two are different things.
and anon, youve asked me a ton of questions. i guess i have one for you: Is the war in Iraq about self-defense? y/n? Is it about economic gain? y/n?
Comment by mano — August 12, 2005 @ 10:17 am
mano, you are the one who said that anyone supporting any war anywhere should be willing to fight, not me. but now you’re qualifying your argument again, introducing the concept of solidarity. good for you. maybe, the bcr kids are in solidarity with the government.
the iraq war is not in self-defense, nor is it for economic gain. if you think the us is profiting economically from the war, you must be out of your mind. just look at the money we spend there and the oil prices we pay, not too mention all the lives lost. while it may benefit certain groups, america as a country is not benefiting.
Comment by anonymous — August 12, 2005 @ 11:20 am
yes, sorry i should clarify/qualify that by saying anyone supporting any war on their behalf (fought by their people) should be willing to join up and fight if help is needed. sound reasonable?
so maybe the bcr kids are “in solidarity with” george bush. we’re with you, us military, but only “in spirit”. well send you a DVD and some foot powder. maybe some twizzlers. haha.
so why the war? perhaps you are unaware that the people who pushed us into this war also said it would pay for itself. this may be news to you, but they sure didnt expect it to turn out this way. things dont always work out the way you want them to, that doesnt mean the reason you did them changes.
but we can go with what you said… if the war is not in self defense, or economic gain, then what is it for?
Comment by mano — August 12, 2005 @ 11:41 am
yes, sorry i should clarify/qualify that by saying anyone supporting any war on their behalf (fought by their people) should be willing to join up and fight if help is needed. sound reasonable?
so maybe the bcr kids are “in solidarity with” george bush. we’re with you, us military, but only “in spirit”. well send you a DVD and some foot powder. maybe some twizzlers. haha.
so why the war? perhaps you are unaware that the people who pushed us into this war also said it would pay for itself. this may be news to you, but they sure didnt expect it to turn out this way. things dont always work out the way you want them to, that doesnt mean the reason you did them changes.
but we can go with what you said… if the war is not in self defense, or economic gain, then what is it for?
Comment by mano — August 12, 2005 @ 11:41 am
the primary reason for the war was WMDs. i actually think that bush, along with many others, actually believed there were WMDs. that turned out to be false. he already invaded and could not switch course. and now we are all paying for it. mano, of course, it’s not news to me about what bush said. he said a lot of stupid shit. wars do not go the way you expect them too, but it could be conducted with more competence, that’s for sure.
Comment by anonymous — August 12, 2005 @ 11:52 am
WMDs would fall under a rather broad characterization of “self-defense.” That’s why that was the explanation given: People aren’t going to support a war for fun (or so I used to think). It has since morphed into “for great justice,” although that explanation was also given beforehand. I think we’re at “don’t be a quitter,” now, but I don’t follow those debates.
Comment by Beetle — August 12, 2005 @ 12:35 pm
Wasn’t there a draft in WW2?
Comment by Anonymous — August 12, 2005 @ 12:35 pm
WMDs? hahaha. Beetle said it best so I wont repeat it.
Anyway, so anon, there are no WMDs, we have shitty people in charge, were sucking it up on the battlefield and the court of public opinion. So can you tell me what the fuck the US is doing there now?
And BCR cant deny that they want this “war”, for some reason, and they cant deny that they want someone else to pay for it and someone else to die for it. You may be smart, anon, but thats a position you just cant defend.
Comment by mano — August 12, 2005 @ 1:04 pm
mano, WMDs was the primary stated justification for invasion. not sure what’s so funny, or what the debate is over. that’s a fact. the administration was not the only one mistaken, but also Congress and the EU. the point is, the primary stated premise for invasion was false, and Bush moved to his 2nd, 3rd, 4th neocon reasons (war on terror, can’t quit now, long-term strategic interest). those are not very convincing to an average american, especially when shit is being blown up every day. WMDs argument was convincing, that’s why so many people supported the invasion, but are now disgusted with the way this has gone.
it’s pointless to argue about intentions. you may say that Bush knew his WMD claim was BS from the beginning, i say that he probably didn’t. He made a decision based on the intelligence given to him, and quite frankly, i don’t really blame him for that decision. the way it’s gone after the invasion is a different story.
Beetle, as far as self-defense, there’s a difference between preemtive war and war in self-defense. you know that.
Comment by anonymous — August 12, 2005 @ 1:21 pm
mano tere alrdy r lots of republicans serving in teh military. military voted for bush by at least 70% son. so tere u have it, reps in the military, dems sitting @ home posting on teh forums. fukin smashT u again man.
“smashT x 1000″
Comment by smashT — August 12, 2005 @ 1:24 pm
I don’t see any real difference. I guess you could call it “pre-emptive self-defense.” Shoot the other dude before he shoots you, and all that.
In any case, the motivation associated with the WMD explanation is self-defense. It’s not that we just don’t like WMDs.
Comment by Beetle — August 12, 2005 @ 2:08 pm
exactly right, pre-emptive strike is like attacking the other dude before he shoots you. it’s *perceived* self-defense, not actual self-defense, because you may be wrong about your assessment of the situation and are actually attacking the guy who had no intention to shoot you or did not even have a gun
. which is different from defending youself after being or as you are being attacked. if america was actually attacked by iraq, i don’t think even mano would object to invasion. for this reason, the decision to invade Afghanistan was relatively simple, pretty strong connection to 9/11. pre-emptive strike against a country that you perceive is a threat to national security is a much harder sell. still don’t see the difference?
Comment by anonymous — August 12, 2005 @ 2:22 pm
Yes, convincing people that they need to defend themselves is different if different things have happened. I don’t see the difference in motivation, though, which is what I was responding to somewhere. I’ve already lost track of what the point of this was, however. Are you drawing a distinction between “self-defense” and “attacking someone you believe to be a danger to you”?
Well, whatever, the semantics don’t really matter. I think we’re now at the “Spilt milk” phase, where we say “Yeah, maybe we shouldn’t have invaded you, but hey, we’re already here.”
Comment by Beetle — August 12, 2005 @ 3:45 pm
smashTface: funny, cuz close to 0% - thats Z E R O %- of BCR is serving. did you have a poinT? eh, niTwiT?
PS: im noT a dem, dumass.
Comment by mano — August 12, 2005 @ 3:53 pm
“mashTface: funny, cuz close to 0% - thats Z E R O %- of BCR is serving. did you have a poinT? eh, niTwiT?
PS: im noT a dem, dumass.”
lol fukin fanboi. all u can do is twy to copy me son. stop trying to be like me kid. smashT
who cares about BCR, u are thier fanboi to. all u do is post about them. they aren’t even important son, get a clue.
i guess u muss be a green party members or som retarded shit like tat. lol smashT. have fun being even more insignificant. just get of gov’t welfare son. tired of my tax dollars going to support fukin punkT kids like u.
“smashT green party lovin punkT kid”
Comment by smashT — August 12, 2005 @ 4:56 pm
President Bush went to war in Iraq because he thought that invading a country that had weapons of mass destruction was in our nation’s best interest. If they did have weapons of mass destruction, then it can be argued that the war was in our country’s best interests. However, there were no weapons, and the fact that we’re STILL there wasting US tax dollars and fiddling around with gaining the Iraqi people “freedom” is costing us lives, money and worsening our reputation.
Someone please give me one good reason why we’re still there. Please don’t list abstract things like bringing Iraq “freedom” and “democracy”. Iraq may be better because of the war but WE’RE sure as hell not. Bring the troops home.
Comment by DTI — August 15, 2005 @ 4:49 pm
DTI: you forgot candy and soccer fields! you cant spell freedom without “candy and soccer fields”.
its funny, you know that quote, “freedom isnt free?” well whatever “freedom is”, it certainly is free for the rest of the world, now that the US is paying to bring it to ‘em, whether they like it or not.
Comment by mano — August 15, 2005 @ 7:20 pm
we in iraq cuz saddam is a lil bitch who violated UN security council resolutions. he needed to be smashT once and for all. also, teh region needs democracy and iraq was a good place to start. now stfu whiner and do something productive with ur life besides eating up govt benefits and bad forum warrioring.
“smashT ownT crushT”
Comment by smashT — August 15, 2005 @ 8:45 pm
the region needed democracy and iraq was a good place to start??
that’s the worst kind of reasoning. it doesn’t answer, among other questions, why iraq was a good -no, the best- place to start. why not iran (which would have been my personal favorite) or syria? and the whole violating UN resolutions is crap for a reason because you and i both know that that was not the main reason Bush went to war. it was, at least as he said it, that iraq represented a clear threat to US national security- and that threat was mainly manifest in iraq’s supposed possestion of WMDs.
so while you talk about general ‘oh, iraq was a good place to start’, your ambiguities are defending the need for a war that has cost 1800 plus US lives. you need a better fucking reason than yours to be able to look a mother in the eye and tell her why she lost her son.
or you can try to be funny and tell her in that 5th grade grammar of yours that ‘ur sun got fukT up’ and see how she takes it, reject.
Comment by Josh — August 15, 2005 @ 9:17 pm
Yeah, telling her “your son died for nothing” would be much easier.
Governments screw people over. Anything the government does is going to screw somebody over. If you want government officials to be limited to only doing those things which they would feel emotionally secure on 300 million individual levels doing, you may as well just call for no government at all, or a government of monsters only. So while your “look a mother in the eye” rhetoric sure pulls the right emotional strings, it’s bullshit if you’re trying to judge government policy.
Comment by Beetle — August 15, 2005 @ 9:57 pm
Beetle hits the nail on the head. “Look a mother in the eye” rhetoric is complete BS, used by demagogues like Michael Moore and such.
But, DTI brings up an interesting question: why are we still in Iraq? Setting aside whether or not the US should have invaded in the first place, let me ask a counter question: how do you see the US pull out without ensuring some sort of stability? Doesn’t the US bear some responsibility for invading Iraq and have to make sure there’s no civil war there? If we pulled out and left the Iraqis in complete chaos, what would be the consequences? The answers to my questions may also be the answers to yours. It’s not as simple as stating that the war is wasting American tax money, so we should get out.
Now, the problem is that it’s pretty chaotic even with the US presence, and our handling of the war demonstrates this administration’s incompetence. However, without the US there, it’d be much much worse, and we’d get blamed for it, justifiable so.
Any thoughts?
Comment by anonymous — August 15, 2005 @ 10:47 pm
“If we pulled out and left the Iraqis in complete chaos, what would be the consequences?”
Yeah that sucks if Iraq turns into chaos. But seriously if the price we’re paying for is in American blood and hundreds of billions of tax dollars that could be used to help boost American industries, jobs, etc… how does the Iraq War benefit us more than pulling out?
I’m sorry if I don’t care as much about Iraqi lives as American lives. But every minute we wait and leave our soldiers to die, the more the terrorists are encouraged to come to Iraq and kill our troops. If we bring the troops home, we will save American lives and probably Iraqi lives too. It seems like the most utilitarian answer.
Comment by DTI — August 15, 2005 @ 10:51 pm
DTI, I understand your logic, but follow me for a second. First, the majority of casualties caused by insurgents in Iraq are Iraqi civilians, not American soldiers and so the Iraqis are paying with their lives as well. Secondly, if we pull out and Iraq becomes another Iran, it won’t be in America’s interest for obvious reasons. Unfortunately, pulling out prematurely makes it more likely for Al Qaeda to gain control of the country. If you think for a second that pulling out will make Al Qaeda get out of Iraq, you’re naive. And thirdly, it’s highly questionable that pulling out will save American and/or Iraqi lives. Maybe in the very short run, it’ll save American lives. It won’t save any Iraqi lives, but will likely increase Iraqi casualties. In the long run, it may cause many casualties on the American side through state sponsored terrorism (see point #2). Cutting your losses may not always be the best move.
Comment by anonymous — August 15, 2005 @ 11:08 pm
anonymous: statying in Iraq is proving to be a hazard to American soldiers. AL Qaeda may crop up at any time, but us being in Iraq gives them an easy target. Over 1,500 US troops have died and 3,000 people died on 911. I would hate to say that one day the number of American soldiers fighting for abstract causes will exceed the biggest terrorist attack of all time.
If we pull out, perhaps there’s chaos, which is always a possibility. We’re not exactly providing law and order in Iraq right now, otherwise so many of our troops wouldn’t already be dead. The Iraqis have their own constitution, their own security forces that we helped them train. The least we can do now (since we shouldn’t have gone in there for so long) is to let them do their own jobs now. As Lyndon Johnson said, he “would not send American boys 12,000 miles to do a job that Asian (in this case Iraqi) boys should be doing for themselves.”
Comment by DTI — August 15, 2005 @ 11:29 pm
DTI, it’s all relative. While it seems like it’s complete chaos with the American troops in Iraq, there’s plenty of room for things to get worse. We are playing “who can predict the future” game, but all I am saying is that there’s a scenario under which pulling out now or a year ago would make this country worse off in the intermediate/long run.
I know you have American interests at heart. But given the threat of terrorism, I really do not understand isolationists anymore. This country no longer has to be invaded by another state to be attacked. Times have changed, it’s a different type of threat. 19 people committed one of the worst attacks on the US territory after getting here legally, living and training here. If you’re suggesting for the US to put its security in the hands of Al Queda and do what bin Laden wants, which is complete elimination of American presense from Muslim lands and the establishment of Caliphate around the world, good luck. If you don’t, there will always be things that will make America a target in the eyes of these savages. In short, isolationism is becoming an obsolete ideology that’s out of touch with today’s reality.
Comment by anonymous — August 15, 2005 @ 11:45 pm
“Governments screw people over. Anything the government does is going to screw somebody over. If you want government officials to be limited to only doing those things which they would feel emotionally secure on 300 million individual levels doing, you may as well just call for no government at all, or a government of monsters only. So while your “look a mother in the eye” rhetoric sure pulls the right emotional strings, it’s bullshit if you’re trying to judge government policy.”
ainT tat teh truth. damn DTI u jus got smashT son.
iraq was a good place to start b/c teh political conditions were tere to do something. we had the british willing to act, we had teh violation of security council resolutions to justify action, etc.. smashT.
i agree other countries could have been just as good, except teh political conditions did not exist to invade other countries. iraq was it b/c its previous bad behaviour allowed the justification.
clearly teh middle east needs democracy. theocracy/dictatorship producing to many terorists. dictators need to be smashT. stop whining, saddam got smashT the world is better for it 5-10 years down the line
“fukin smashT DTI”
Comment by smashT — August 16, 2005 @ 2:12 am
Yeah dictators suck, but we do not and will not have the financial resources to smash every dictator around the world. Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein, but the world would also be better off without Kim Jong Il, or Fidel Castro, or a slew of communist and fascist dictators who kill their people. We can’t invade every country in hopes of getting rid of totalitarian regimes.
A country like Iraq really isn’t ready for democracy. Democracy has only succeeded in advanced industrial nations (except India), yet all of a sudden one of the poorest nations on earth, Afghanistan, has democracy imposed upon it. Iraq, used to totalitarian regimes and no industrialized power, has democracy rammed down its throat.
“Times have changed, it’s a different type of threat. 19 people committed one of the worst attacks on the US territory after getting here legally, living and training here.”
Anonymous, maybe if we spent those billions and billions that we are currently using to fight “terrorism” abroad in our OWN country fighting terrorism DOMESTICALLY, we would have a safer, more secure country. If we’re so concerned about national security, then why are we spending more money on Iraqi security thatn our own national security.
“In short, isolationism is becoming an obsolete ideology that’s out of touch with today’s reality.”
Yes, if we stand around and do nothing, maybe isolationism could be a bad thing (but then we would call it ignorance). However, America has its own problems we need to deal with. One of those is domestic terrorism. If we spend resources there instead of abroad thousands of miles away, maybe our country might actually benefit.
Comment by DTI — August 16, 2005 @ 5:37 am
domestic terrorism as opposed to terrorism coming from Al Qaeda? Not sure what you mean by domestic terrorism, DTI, but the threat from fundamentalist Islam is much greater than any other source of terrorism. And I already hear mano screaming that the threat from fundamentalist Islam was not there in Iraq, but we are talking about America’s options once it invaded, not beforehand. And today, the American and Iraqi troops are fighting Al Qaeda and its sympathizers. And history shows that fighting the enemy is always better than appeasing it. I do agree that how we spend our resources in fighting terrorism is definitely important.
The reason that we are spending money on Iraqi security is because it’s aligned with American security, or at least that’s the thinking. A stable democratic Iraq benefits the US; an Iraqi theocracy endangers the US.
Comment by anonymous — August 16, 2005 @ 7:53 am
haha. at this point, a theocracy is about the best you are going to get. in another year, youll be talking about how a stable theocratic iraq benefits the US, while america’s worst morons try desparately to “succeed” despite not having an articulable objective, despite operating in a society they absolutely dont understand, with the bluntest, dullest of tools.
Comment by mano — August 16, 2005 @ 9:38 am
” Democracy has only succeeded in advanced industrial nations (except India)”
cuz teh US was an advanced industrial nation in 1776 lol smashT. damn who r tese kids m@n? tis is what berkeley has to offer? fukin feel bad for teh school lol
“DTI ownT”
Comment by smashT — August 16, 2005 @ 10:29 am
“haha. at this point, a theocracy is about the best you are going to get. in another year, youll be talking about how a stable theocratic iraq benefits the US, while america’s worst morons try desparately to “succeed” despite not having an articulable objective, despite operating in a society they absolutely dont understand, with the bluntest, dullest of tools.”
so basically what u saying is: iraq’s not smart enough for democracy cuz they arab. i guess tats why teh left is teh new brownshirts m@n. fukin superiority complex gon beserk.
tats ok though. keep on tinking iraq’s to inferior for democracy. while u whine and assert ur superiority on forums iraq will build a stable democracy and show ur punkT ass up.
“mano smashT again”
Comment by smashT — August 16, 2005 @ 10:34 am
smashy: uR reading comprehension is like, second grade level. but we’ll pretend ur right, iraq is the “success story” of the year, its everything you ever imagined… and you were right there to post a blog commenT about it. you were part of it man, you were part of it!
“ur weener got smashT, again. wots left of it.”
Comment by mano — August 16, 2005 @ 11:44 am
“haha. at this point, a theocracy is about the best you are going to get.”
mano, rooting for the other team? or just expressing your pessimistic views?
Comment by anonymous — August 16, 2005 @ 12:06 pm
um, my pessimistic views. but your optimism is nice and all. here, take this pretty flower to wear in your hair.
Comment by mano — August 16, 2005 @ 12:38 pm
“Not sure what you mean by domestic terrorism, DTI, but the threat from fundamentalist Islam is much greater than any other source of terrorism.”
What I mean by domestic terrorism, anonymous, is the terrorism that Britain experienced from Islamic Extremists in their own country. Like those terrorists we found in Lodi. We should be working on that problem, not some expensive game in Iraq. You neocons keep saying how a democratic Iraq is not a threat but a non-democratic one is. Then why, oh why do we have allies around the world (China…) that aren’t democratic. Do they pose a threat to us? Do we still do business with them?? Why on earth would another country’s democracy make ours more or less safe. What makes us more or less safe is whether or not we attempt to create policies that will make people respond violently to our presence.
Comment by DTI — August 16, 2005 @ 1:15 pm
China does make us less safe, actually. But it’s our ally because we like having things, and China helps us get things. Not so for Iraq.
Comment by Beetle — August 16, 2005 @ 3:00 pm
Yea, Beetle. China doesn’t make us less safe, but they are undemocratic. Anonymous is wrong when he says that less democratic countries (like Iraq) make us less safe. Whether or not other states keep us safe is based upon what they need from us and what we need from them.
Comment by DTI — August 16, 2005 @ 3:20 pm
DTI, yeah, countries like Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan before the invasion, all do make us less safe. But countries like Great Britain and Finland do NOT make America less safe. I am not seeing any pattern here, are you?
Comment by anonymous — August 16, 2005 @ 3:34 pm
One of us seems to have misplaced a ‘not,’ DTI. China is a threat, but it’s one we deal with because we want what they have to offer. The same is true with Saudi Arabia.
Comment by Beetle — August 16, 2005 @ 4:37 pm
anonymous, the only country that has tangibly made us less safe is Afghanistan. The others blow hot air and can be dealt with by ignoring them. When you ignore people (like smashT), they eventually go away. How has any of the rouge nation states you named made us fell less safe?
Beetle, sorry didn’t see your “not”.
Comment by DTI — August 16, 2005 @ 4:42 pm
” smashy: uR reading comprehension is like, second grade level. but we’ll pretend ur right, iraq is the “success story” of the year, its everything you ever imagined… and you were right there to post a blog commenT about it. you were part of it man, you were part of it!”
i never said iraq was a success story now. i said it was gonna be in teh future. damn son who’s reading comphrension is now fuked? lol smashT. how bout u learn how to distinguish btween different tenses before u talk about my “reading comphrehension”. fukin crushT
“When you ignore people (like smashT),”
tanks for teh attention. keep it cumming fanboi.
“1st graders and fanboi’s smashT”
Comment by smashT — August 16, 2005 @ 4:55 pm
Wow smashT, how do you know Iraq will be a success story? Are you some kind of psychic? If so you would probably be able to counter all of our arguments better than you are doing now.
Iraq will be a success story once we get the hell out and let them try out their democracy on their own. Democracies don’t happen because someone forced it upon them. They succeed when the people rise up against their oppressors and make democracy themselves.
Comment by DTI — August 16, 2005 @ 6:22 pm
wow, DTI, when you ingore people, they eventually go away?!!! Common, man! Your suggestion to ignore Iran’s and North Korea’s nuclear threat in the hope that they will go away? Hahahaha.
Comment by anonymous — August 16, 2005 @ 6:52 pm
What rational reason would North Korea have to lob a nuke at us? After they destroy one major city, their whole country will become an instant crater. The only reason they say they will use the weapons is to get us scared and caving into their stupid demands.
Remember 9/11? Two towers for two countries isn’t exactly winning an Islamic jihad.
Comment by DTI — August 16, 2005 @ 8:05 pm
“Wow smashT, how do you know Iraq will be a success story? Are you some kind of psychic? If so you would probably be able to counter all of our arguments better than you are doing now.
Iraq will be a success story once we get the hell out and let them try out their democracy on their own. Democracies don’t happen because someone forced it upon them. They succeed when the people rise up against their oppressors and make democracy themselves.”
damn son. so u basically concede my point. “iraq will be a success story” lol so now u a psychic to? smashT
democracy happens when teh middle class decides tat tey want a greater say in running teh country or when it is militarily put in place. it can work either way and has in the past. smashT
get a fukin clue
“DTI ownT”
Comment by smashT — August 16, 2005 @ 8:15 pm
“wow, DTI, when you ingore people, they eventually go away?!!!”
he is my fanboi along wit mano. course tey not gonna ignore me. tey like being smashT. like every leftist tey dieing to be oppressed in some way. i fulfill tere desires by smashTing them on teh forums.
“fanboi crushT”
Comment by smashT — August 16, 2005 @ 8:17 pm
smashT, you’re an idiot if you think I’m a leftist.
Comment by DTI — August 16, 2005 @ 8:29 pm
“smashT, you’re an idiot if you think I’m a leftist.”
oh i’m sorry. what flavor of marxist r u then? lol smashT. in truth u sound lik anoter berkeley leftist.
“dunnoT”
Comment by smashT — August 16, 2005 @ 10:12 pm
Have you ever met a man named Pat Buchanan, John Raimondo? How about a woman named Ezola Foster? Are they liberals? Oh wait, I’m guessing you don’t know who the last two are. Yes, their ideas sound leftist, progressive. In reality they’re somethign we call PALEOCONSERVATIVES, smashT.
“OOOH dumbassT!!!”
Comment by DTI — August 17, 2005 @ 2:07 pm
“Have you ever met a man named Pat Buchanan, John Raimondo? How about a woman named Ezola Foster? Are they liberals? Oh wait, I’m guessing you don’t know who the last two are. Yes, their ideas sound leftist, progressive. In reality they’re somethign we call PALEOCONSERVATIVES, smashT.”
so u are a paleocobservative? damn m@n i feel even sorrier for u lol smashT.
“paleo-retard smashT”
Comment by smashT — August 17, 2005 @ 4:54 pm