Are you expecting an even more violent insurgency now that he is dead?
I'm not sure what to expect. I do, however, think it would be naive for people to think that the violence in Iraq will stop because he's pushing up daisies.
Are you expecting an even more violent insurgency now that he is dead?
For a bit, yes.
Of course I also think the president's approval rating is somehow, inexplicably, going to climb partway out of the gutter, and it's not like that pleases me either.
I only see this approval rating climbing if there is a sustained lull in the violence. Even if there is a sustained lull, the news will be reporting on Haditha, so it will keep him in the general public's disfavor.
Sure, you'll get conservative commentators screaming about bias, and about the media not reporting on the good things happening in Iraq, but:
a) that's nothing new from them b) their most loyal listeners most likely approve of what he is doing
The Dems will have to do something really stupid in order to not gain a majority this fall.
I am assuming that they may, for once, learn from their mistakes. That they would actually start discussing issues and offering solutions to the problems facing the nation. Aside from the "culture of corruption," that is. A really stupid platform to base your party on, if you ask me.
Then again, this is the party that lost the presidency in 2000. How Gore was able to drop that ball surprises me to this day. Sure, he was stiff and came off as a total tool in the debates. But come on! We were at peace, the economy was more or less robust. How do you, as an incumbent, lose?!
And, of course, Gore did lose the election. People keep going on and on about the popular vote, but the popular vote doesn't matter. But I'll grant that the 2000 election wasn't decided by votes at all, so that's even more of a non-conversation. ;-)
Ultimately, the SC did say "enough is enough already." They had the vote count stand where it was. So the election was decided by the votes.
My memory is foggy, since it was done so long ago, but didn't newspapers in Florida perform their own after-the-fact recount and find that there wouldn't have been enough of a vote swing to tip the state in Gore's favor? I could have sworn I remember reading that in the Post at some point. Along with stories that independent investigations could not confirm accusations of disenfranchising of voters. Not saying it didn't happen, or that it hasn't happened in prior elections by both sides (heck, take a look at voting practices in Chicago!). Just saying I remember reading that it was a non-issue.
Could be mistaken, though. The mind isn't as sharp as it used to be...I'm getting on a bit in age. :-)
In point of fact, Gore didn't lose. And Kerry didn't lose in 2004.
In point of fact, they did. ;-)
Otherwise Gore wouldn't be introducing his speeches by saying "I was once the next President of the United States."
Were the roles reversed, and Bush had won the popular vote while Gore had won the electoral, I wouldn't be claiming that Bush had won. Nor would I be saying that Gore and his cronies stole the election. I'd mumble and grumble about Gore being President, and then return my focus to local elections and issues.
Gore definitely should have been a rout. Kerry... I don't think so. He really wasn't an appealing candidate, and Edwards just seemed so dang smarmy. I'm not sure who a good 04 candidate would have been, but Kerry ran a pretty poor campaign.
Do you remember the Philadelphia rally in the last week of the 2004 campaign in which Clinton spoke, and he was SO much better than Kerry (whom he was supposed to support)?
Clinton didn't say a thing unpleasant about Kerry, just sparkled, schmoozed & roused the crowd for 15 minutes, and afterwards Kerry was just one wet blanket. Talk about letdown!
I don't think they're going to hate us more, but I do think losing a charismatic leader tends to get people fired up. (And then cause them to fall apart in a disorganized heap. But that's after a period of increased violence, I predict.)
The fallout may not be fun (although, frankly? I don't think they were pulling their punches before) but it's one big step ahead nonetheless. Every terrorism expert agrees that their leaders are more difficult to replace than we'd think. And morale is VERY important; believe me, they're not happy right now, while your average Iraqi must be toasting this with lemonade. I'm sorry if I posted from the hip, but you sounded mostly fearful instead of cheering the hit.
(Hits. They also got Z's "spiritual adviser", one Sheik Abdul Rahman. Excellent use of your and my tax dollars, since I'm giving a few $$$ to Uncle Sam this year.)
Question; how on earth do they know he's dead? It sounds like they just dropped a huge amount of explosives on a house that they think he was in, and, given nothing in the article said different, it looks like they haven't confirmed the death because, presumably, nothing/nobody who was in that house can possibly be identified afterwards.
They got him, I said. So, good for them. Doesn't mean it's going to be flowers and rainbows now -- in fact, I think it'll be a couple of big steps away from that at first, and that's going to suck. Ergo, hunkering down.
they would have at their disposal 72 houris, the beautiful virgins of paradise
Here's the thing, Shez: I'd think they'd prefer having "at their disposal" (that's not the least bit offensive, is it?) 72 beautiful, disease free porn starlets. Or at least women of paradise who have actually had sex before, and would know umpteen different ways to please a man.
You, and my normal friends, would. These guys wouldn't. A woman is unclean if she's as much as let a man not her brother or father see her uncovered hair (or face.) I think I was most terrified by the tall order the West has taken on when reading this thoughtful piece by George Packer (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040517fa_fact), in which we meet one educated member of the Iraqi middle-class - an emergency doctor whose other specialty is examining girls to give them virginity certificates (and he does that knowing full well their families will kill them if he reveals they're no longer virgins) or suspected gays for corroborating proof (whoch used to send them to the firing squad under Saddam.) Guy had absolutely no qualms or regrets, either.
whose other specialty is examining girls to give them virginity certificates (and he does that knowing full well their families will kill them if he reveals they're no longer virgins)
Now, I'm no expert on the female anatomy, but how can he make this determination with complete certitude? As in, how does he know that his evidence was the result of sexual activity?
how can he make this determination with complete certitude?
He can't. I'm not sure he can make it with any certitude. misia has written a book on the subject -- it's not on shelves yet, but there may still be snippets in her LJ that you might find interesting.
It was sort of rhetorical. I was pretty certain that I knew the answer (assuming I am correct in assuming how he is checking her virginity), but I didn't want to state it as fact.
On account of I'm just a dumb male programmer. :-)
Well -- in what I'm going to charitably call fairness, a lot of people think it is possible to determine from a physical examination whether a woman has had sex or not. It's even likely that some of those people are medical practitioners. Apparently your original question, to say nothing of misia's extensive scholarship, has not occurred to them.
Apparently your original question, to say nothing of misia's extensive scholarship, has not occurred to them.
Or perhaps it has, and they choose to dismiss it.
I don't have any children, but if I did, I couldn't imagine killing my daughter because some doctor looked at her and said "ayup...it done look like she's been a knockin' boots!" Even if I didn't believe in pre-marital sex.
... and this terrific piece from the New Yorker by Pakistani journalist Nasra Hassan: Talking to the human bombs (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/011119fa_FACT1).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
I'm not sure what to expect. I do, however, think it would be naive for people to think that the violence in Iraq will stop because he's pushing up daisies.
no subject
For a bit, yes.
Of course I also think the president's approval rating is somehow, inexplicably, going to climb partway out of the gutter, and it's not like that pleases me either.
no subject
Sure, you'll get conservative commentators screaming about bias, and about the media not reporting on the good things happening in Iraq, but:
a) that's nothing new from them
b) their most loyal listeners most likely approve of what he is doing
The Dems will have to do something really stupid in order to not gain a majority this fall.
no subject
Like that's never happened before.
no subject
I am assuming that they may, for once, learn from their mistakes. That they would actually start discussing issues and offering solutions to the problems facing the nation. Aside from the "culture of corruption," that is. A really stupid platform to base your party on, if you ask me.
Then again, this is the party that lost the presidency in 2000. How Gore was able to drop that ball surprises me to this day. Sure, he was stiff and came off as a total tool in the debates. But come on! We were at peace, the economy was more or less robust. How do you, as an incumbent, lose?!
no subject
Although I totally agree with you that it should have been a rout, both times, and not a sskin-of-teeth maneuver. I'm just saying. ;)
no subject
And, of course, Gore did lose the election. People keep going on and on about the popular vote, but the popular vote doesn't matter. But I'll grant that the 2000 election wasn't decided by votes at all, so that's even more of a non-conversation. ;-)
no subject
My memory is foggy, since it was done so long ago, but didn't newspapers in Florida perform their own after-the-fact recount and find that there wouldn't have been enough of a vote swing to tip the state in Gore's favor? I could have sworn I remember reading that in the Post at some point. Along with stories that independent investigations could not confirm accusations of disenfranchising of voters. Not saying it didn't happen, or that it hasn't happened in prior elections by both sides (heck, take a look at voting practices in Chicago!). Just saying I remember reading that it was a non-issue.
Could be mistaken, though. The mind isn't as sharp as it used to be...I'm getting on a bit in age. :-)
no subject
In point of fact, they did. ;-)
Otherwise Gore wouldn't be introducing his speeches by saying "I was once the next President of the United States."
Were the roles reversed, and Bush had won the popular vote while Gore had won the electoral, I wouldn't be claiming that Bush had won. Nor would I be saying that Gore and his cronies stole the election. I'd mumble and grumble about Gore being President, and then return my focus to local elections and issues.
Gore definitely should have been a rout. Kerry... I don't think so. He really wasn't an appealing candidate, and Edwards just seemed so dang smarmy. I'm not sure who a good 04 candidate would have been, but Kerry ran a pretty poor campaign.
Kerry was a terrble candidate
Re: Kerry was a terrble candidate
Re: Kerry was a terrble candidate
no subject
I mean, like they're going to somehow hate us more for this? It's like al-Qaida was buddy-buddy with us before.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
(Hits. They also got Z's "spiritual adviser", one Sheik Abdul Rahman. Excellent use of your and my tax dollars, since I'm giving a few $$$ to Uncle Sam this year.)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I was quite surprised by the photo they had of him. My intial thought: "how was he even recognizable after two 500 lb bombs hit the house?!"
no subject
no subject
They got him, I said. So, good for them. Doesn't mean it's going to be flowers and rainbows now -- in fact, I think it'll be a couple of big steps away from that at first, and that's going to suck. Ergo, hunkering down.
Dude.
no subject
no subject
(I predict for them the same surprise as Arafat's:
no subject
And about these virgins...why the heck do they want n number of virgins?
no subject
no subject
Here's the thing, Shez: I'd think they'd prefer having "at their disposal" (that's not the least bit offensive, is it?) 72 beautiful, disease free porn starlets. Or at least women of paradise who have actually had sex before, and would know umpteen different ways to please a man.
Call me crazy.
no subject
no subject
Now, I'm no expert on the female anatomy, but how can he make this determination with complete certitude? As in, how does he know that his evidence was the result of sexual activity?
Sorry for hi-jacking your thread, Fox.
no subject
no subject
no subject
He can't. I'm not sure he can make it with any certitude.
no subject
no subject
no subject
On account of I'm just a dumb male programmer. :-)
no subject
And yet he presumes to do so. What a {insert favorite colorful word here}.
no subject
no subject
Or perhaps it has, and they choose to dismiss it.
I don't have any children, but if I did, I couldn't imagine killing my daughter because some doctor looked at her and said "ayup...it done look like she's been a knockin' boots!" Even if I didn't believe in pre-marital sex.
no subject