Hmm... Not sure I buy into the analysis entirely, but jee-whiz almighty, I'm gonna have to chew on that for a smidge.

The Singer piece is excellent. I have linked this comment to a post of mine that links to four interesting articles about the Westerners (two of whom were under sentence of death) that were recently released by the Saudis. The Westerners seem to have been framed on the terrorist charges and tortured while in detention in Saudi. In another incident, a Western victim of a terrorist bombing found himself arrested by the Saudis and charged with planting it.

In this war you always have to watch what the Bush Administration actually does versus what it says.

I swear to G-d I have been saying this since 9-12-02 at the UN speech

If this is even 1/2 on, you have to give credit to long range thinkers in terms of victory

HG

Oil sands...Suncor is now producing 200,000 barrels/day from oil sands. They report cash operating costs of about $11/barrel...not clear on exactly what this includes, possibly not a full allocation of capital costs...but still, looks like they have a pretty viable business...

Two articles:

The Oil Kingdom: A Royal House of Cards

Former CIA operative Robert Baer: "The Fall of the House of Saud"

Can the Saudis make money at $8 a barrel? If so (and they used to be able to do this) a lot of this analysis falls apart. Whatever the costs of unconventional extraction are, they won't permit a profit at $8 a barrel. This gives the Saudis an opportunity (though a painful one in several ways) to starve the higher-cost producers into bankruptcy.

Steve,

The Saudis can be profitable at $8 a barrel. So, yes. Now, the real question: can they service their debt and support their welfare state on oil at that price? Probably not. The economics of it works, the politics doesn't.

Can they make it if key assets are seized to pay for the 911 lawsuit? Can they make it if our allies freeze their assets? I still would love a timeline for when the sh*t is supposed to hit the fan.

The Saudis have huge problems economically and in all likelihood the country would collapse if forced to sell at $8 per barrel. There's been negligible growth for the past three years, per capita GDP shrank 3.8% last year, and the kingdom has a growing debt problem.

Thing is, oil revenues are a very volatile way to finance a government - a $1 price swing can mean a $2.7 billion dollar change in revenues. So the Saudi's pretty much depend on a $17 dollar a barrel price to meet their budgetary requirements. Right now with Iraqi oil production still at less than half the pre-war levels, oil prices are stuck in the $28-$30 range. If we started producing a lot of good, cheap crude on the market it could easily cripple them.

For a Saudi's eye view of things Link

In October of 2001 I wrote a column about the current war. I said it was a war about oil. Not about oil shortages but oil gluts. Originally published in the Rock River Times in Nov of 2001. My analysis was based on the coming of hybrid vehicles followed by fuel cells in 10 to 15 years. I did not take into account tar sands or drilling in places other than the ME.

You can read it here:

http://www.aldenchronicles.com/archives/archives_simon_about.html

Try the link : *What the War Is Really About*

Rumor has it that Bush may do a recess appointment of Daniel Pipes to the US Institute of Peace. If he does so, I will take that as another sign of the gloves coming off. (CAIR is screaming bloody murder. CAIR is Saudi/Wahhabi financed.)

http://www.changingworldtech.com

These people are also meeting the $15/barrel line.

Believe it.

The Bush administration should use the Shia in Iraq to promote independence of the Shia region of Saudi Arabia. It just happens that the Shia region is (a)along the Gulf Coast far from Mecca (b) ontop of the oil © on the coast where the US can operate.

If the Saudi's complain Iran can be blamed.

Don't forget about Russia's huge oil reserves. About a year ago, Russia announced it was increasing infrastructure, increasing production and no longer pegging its price to OPEC's price. I haven't seen much on this since then, but I thought then and still suspect that Russia is positioning itself to replace Saudi Arabia in the supply chain.

The Economist had an article on the Alberta sand-oil developments. It says the cost of extraction is around $12/barrel and they're already producing nearly a 200,000 barrels/day. (Sure, drop in the bucket as compared to Saudi's 8m barrels/day, but it's a start.)

The Economist argues that the sand-oil will remain marginal as long as Gulf oil is cheap to extract and the situation there remains reasonably stable (politically and otherwise).

URL:

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1875182

"Can the Sauds profit at $8 a barrel?" is the wrong question. The question is "can the world do without Saudi oil capacity and aviod economic meltdown while so doing?" The Bush Administration is trying to set things up so the answer will become "Yes".

That's the point at which the Saudis lose their influence. Oil won't have to reach anywhere near $8 a barrel for that factor to come into play. Starting a couple years ago, "coincidentally", Bush & Cheney et al were promoting additional oil exploration & development in Africa, among other places. The point isn't necessarily to drop the price of oil below the floor, but rather to prevent Arabia from being able to raise it above the roof - a really different matter, and that's the point at which they lose their power internationally.

Regarding Trent's post, I also commented on it here.

You forgot the flip side. If the restoration and expansion of Iraqi oil production means the Saudis get less money for their own oil, that means the Saudis have an incredible interest in making sure the U.S. gets bogged down in Iraq and the infrastructure there never gets repaired. Saudi funding of Al Qaeda and other anti-Western forces dovetails nicely with increased attacks on U.S. troops and engineers in Baghdad and elsewhere.

It occurs to me, reading these comments, that Saudi Arabia is named after one family, the House of Saud. All the arguments above apply fairly well to that Saudi Arabia, one ruled by the House of Saud. They seem to me to fall apart rather swiftly in any other kind.

And who, exactly, do you think is going to come into power if the House of Saud falls? Assuming that at some point in the distant future we can exist without Saudi oil means that at some point in the distant future we can afford to provoke instability in Saudi Arabia --- not now, when to do so would quite possibly lead to rise of an regime which is actively, official hostile to America in charge of the tap. We can't afford for that to happen in the next 5 to 10 years, I would imagine, not until Iraq is itself a stable producer.

Trent,

This is a pipe dream. It's delusional to think the Bush Administration will ever forcefully confront the House of Saud. Please look at what they say and do instead of what you surmise and wish. The fact is that they need the stability of steady oil output that is inherit in US/Saudi
relations. Without it, their military adventures in the middle east become much more difficult. They do not have any "strategic" thinkers sitting in the basement of the white house plotting a five or ten year plan to oust the royal family. That's pure delusion. What they do have in the basement of the white house a political operation that works tirelessly to fool people like you into believing stuff like this.

My understanding about most unconventional oil processes at significant scale is that the limiting factor is delivering huge quantities of water to the location of the deposits. A non-trivial environmental, economic and political problem in western North America.

M Simon...interesting analysis. But it seems to me that wind power is limited by the problems of storage (and this is assuming that the NIMBY/aesthetics issues can be overcome). Peak power demand may occur at 6:00 PM while peak wind velocities are at 10:00 AM. Current battery technology is basically pathetic; pumped hydro storage has major NIMBY problems of its own. Any thoughts?

I don't believe that oil analysis point about unconventional oil going down to $15 a barrel. I just don't see Alberta's oil sand deposits anywhere near that, for example.

It all depends on what unconventional means. It appears that, since the author is lumping things like Venezuelan heavy oil and Canadian oil sands into all things unconventional, he means any oil not light and sweet or possibly anything that doesn't come from traditional oil areas (i.e. Mid East, Gulf of Mexico, Baku, etc). If this definition is correct then he's probably right that the average cost of extraction is around $15 for such resources (although that's still feels a bit low). Canadian tar sands, of course, will be much higher simply due to all of the extra processing needed to turn that sludge into something useful.

Personally, I say drop a high yield hydrogen fusion device sack in the middle of Mecca, right on the rock. Doing it publicly, with stern warning not to mess with the US again. Hey, if Goldfinger was going to raise the value of his gold by making our's radioactive, think of the vast billions, if not trillions of dollars of increased worth to our own oil reserves let alone Iraq's if Saudi oil is thereafter unusable.

Oh, and a nuked Mecca tickles me immensely. If Islam wants to play hardball I say we show them what people who MAKE THINGS do when attacked.

I suppose you expect us to believe Bush is a man of business acumen, a uniter not divider, and a compassionate conservative, valiantly leading America in a righteous christian war against the "evil one".

Rightwingideologues and squawking truebelievers have been parroting the phantasmagoria of a secret grand super plan, (the vaunted Pax Americana war agenda) since Bush usurped the white house.

The obscene profits of Bush cronies in the oil, energy, and military cartels are the only reason for shielding the Saudi's, and all this nonsense about strategic plans for "democratizing" (colonizing) the middle east, is a partisan fiction.

The Bush leadership, and their cloaked and shapeshifting policies and agenda are based on hype and deception and the shameless shielding of the house of Saudi is a glaring proof..

"...drop a high yield hydrogen fusion device..."

Marijuana counts. It's high-yield, intricately put together and wholly powered by hydrogen fusion.

"Hey, Osama, you want to go out and bomb some infidels?" -- "Naaah, maybe later or something. Hey, man, have you ever looked at your hand? I mean, really looked at it?"

Any reply more serious than this, is more than Shiloh's comment deserves. Please don't feed the trolls.

Tony...where exactly are these obscene profits? Halliburton stock is trading below where it did in January 1999, and the company has a return on equity of less than 2%. If I were a Halliburton shareowner, I'd think all this was indeed obscene, but in another meaning of the term...

Joe, that dialog sounds...awfully realistic - if you know what I mean...

A.L.

Oh wow, Tony is smearing his crap all over someone else's blog again. You haven't changed a bit, Tone. Like I've said, you're saying the same crap, over and over. Just like you do at the Rottweiler. Just like you did at my blog. And dozens of other blogs. Please reassign your macro key for some truly original words, please? You're so predictable you have a drinking game based on your continual recycling of the same unspaced words. You're not taken seriously. You're a joke.
Maybe someday a large falling brick will jolt the broken record player of your mind...

--TwoDragons

ahem

Moralistic self righteous cowboy incompetent won through connections not votes profits money cronies OIL colonizer corrupt backscratching partisan liar deceit hype glaring proof.

Actually, Baloon-Juice does it better- http://www.balloon-juice.com/archives/002904.html

Stock values are liquid, but I seem to remember Halliburton having an outstanding quarter. What about the Carlyle Group?

And you are correct two dragons that my commentary is much the same, and it will continue to be much the same until this issues are addressed openly.

The leadership you support is deceptive and abusive.

Yah, and Wal-Mart had a good quarter, so it must be all about Oiiiiilllll.

"The leadership you support is deceptive and abusive."

Says someone who is deceptive and abusive of the facts. Tony, you all can smear and dissemble as much as you want, but it doesn't make it true.

Keep dreaming guys. Bandar Bush isn't going anywhere. Wish I sold rope so I could make a killing selling bloggers supplies for their rope-a-dope fantasies.

Take a look at this:

The shaken House of Saud
(Filed: 14/08/2003)

Looks like the British are beginning to prepare for the possibility.

I quit reading Bill Quick because of Tony's pollution. If he starts stinking up Winds of Change, I'm gonna be pissed.

"The leadership you support is deceptive and abusive." Tony Foresta

Good. I hope we see more of both. The Bushies have done a great job of deceiving guys like Tony into focusing on 'stolen election,' 'it's about oil,' and 'Bush is dumb.' Makes Tony et al. look stupid and out of touch -- and as long as they keep focusing on that they'll be sucker punched into oblivion, first by President Bush, then by President Rice, then by some sharp young conservative now in his/her late 30s.

I want to see the Saudis and their ilk deceived and abused. Thoroughly. I want to see the secular-socialist, self-appointed intellectual elite pushed around, and eventually out. The sooner the better. I will vote for and support any pols/parties who will make even a credible attempt at doing this, for neither the Saudis nor the self-appointed intellectual elite are America's friends.

So that's why you are gone from DP, Robert. Pity. Missed you.

Nick,

You forget that George Dubya's national security team were the folks that murdered the Soviet Union. This is thier signature style.

Your memory lapse on this fact is a common one suffered by Bush haters.

The real question you need to be thinking about is who are the targets of Bush's PsyWarOp inside Saudi Arabia, other than the Al-Saud Clan?

I'll speak for myself gentle people thank you, and what I said was this leadership is deceptive and abusive.

Do your own google on Bush deceptions if you dare, and get back to me. The list is long and growing, and hysterical blindness, partisan devotion, and the complicit parrots in the mainstream media's negligence in reporting the facts - does not alter the reality that the Saudi's fund and nurture jihadist islamic mass murderers, including al Queda.

I also advance the argument that Bush OBVIOUS shielding of the House of Saud, belies the soothsaying about what may some day, as part of some grand unspoken super plan compell redress.

Currently, the evidence is thick and subtantive on my side, and hollow and airy on yours.

If Bush is just now forcing the Saudi's to "reform" their funding and nurturing of mass murderer machinations (as you believe), - why has it taken so long - and why does Bush continue today shield the Saudi's from investigation and redress?

Tony,

Don't forget to add into your diatribe that Clinton is in with Bush too. I seem to remember last summer when the Saudi King visited the Western White House he then went to see Bubba in a hotel in Houston. Somehow I don't think they were doing the same thing Bubba and Moanica did together.

I too stopped reading DP on a regular basis because of Tony. No, Tony you are not winning. There are thousands of blogs out there in the some vein as DP, where site pests like you do not conjugate!

I have learned to open the front door each morning to make sure the sky has not fallen yet. Each morning I see it hasn't and know Tony is still full of BS and always will be. I know that Truth, Justice and the American Way still prevail!

As a public service I will provide the Tony Foresta Drinking Game (as published by Evil Otto over at the Emperor Misha's place.) It's a lot more fun than actually trying to make sense of what he writes.

The Tony Foresta Drinking Game!

Take 1 drink whenever he uses the following terms or words:

"truebeliever"
"usurping" or "usurper"
"selected"
"sliming" (or any variation of the word)
"quagmire"
"rightwingideologue"
"deceit" (or any variation of the word)
"parrot" or "parroting"
In addition, take a drink whenever he uses a term not on the above list without proper spacing.

Take one drink for every word of:

"Bush fundamentalist republican oligarchy"
Take two drinks for:

"imperialist"
"Manichean"
"warmongers"
"the children"
Finish your drink for:

"Marauding hobgoblins" (and get another drink if he misspells it.)
This game is guaranteed to get you hammered in no time flat.

Trent,

"You forget that George Dubya's national security team were the folks that murdered the Soviet Union. This is thier signature style."

Okay...for the record. The soviet union wasn't "murdered" by this crowd. Without the leadership and vision of Mr. Gorbachav, things would be much the same as they were during the cold war. But this is beside the point. I asked for you to examine what's actually occurred instead of what you wish to occur. What evidence can you point to that supports this Administrations so called "PsyWarOp" plan? I can point out serveral instances of Saudi coddling by this administration. I bet you can too. Again, it's conjecture and wishful thinking. Is the truth just too hard to face?

Nick Foresta

lshannon, you're right, but the conspiracy goes beyond Clinton being in cahoots with this machine, it digs deep into the bowels of the Democratic Party ("Critics of the War -- And Their False Charges")

Nick blathered, delusionally:

"Without the leadership and vision of Mr. Gorbachav, things would be much the same as they were during the cold war. But this is beside the point."

Yah, Gorby wanted the Soviet Union to break up, not Reagan. Right. . .it was Gorby's vision of a world without the Soviet Union and his leadership that made it happen, not Reagan. *roll eyes*

Hard to believe I ever thought folks like you looked at the world rationally.

Nick,

Mr. Gorbachev's "leadership and vision"? Who's the wishful thinker here?

FYI, there's an article in the NYT (op-ed page) on oil sands. Apparently, there's a lot of this stuff in Venezuela as well as Canada.

Porphyogenitus and JB,

Talk about blathering...

I know for you guys this is difficult to follow but wishing is not the same thing as doing. Because Reagan "wished" for the demise of the soviet union does not mean he accomplished it. That credit goes to Mr. Gorbachev. Did you guys ever hear of Glasnost? It was in all the papers. I know Limbaugh may not have covered it so it could have slipped below your radar but I'm sure a couple of smart guys like you could find a copy somewhere. It was a revolutionary call to dismantle a failing system, peacefully and from the inside. It nearly failed. There was a coup but, backed by a like-minded reformer in the Politburo by the name of Boris Yeltsin, the army sided with the reformers and the rest is history.
One can make an argument that Reagan's defense biuld up may have hastened this demise but the hard work was accomplished from the inside and not from the outside. But, are you really suggesting there was a "PsyWarOp" plan in place that laid out this scenario for the destruction of the soviet empire? Or that one exists now for the Saudi Royal family? PLU-EASE...If so, it's working great! "Yeah, we'll fix 'em! I know! We'll trick them by cowtowing to their every desire, we'll pretend not to notice that the wife of the Saudi foreign minister sent checks directly to a 9/11 hijacker." Great work boys, I bet their cowering under their camels as we speak. Tell me, exactly when is this great Saudi shake-up going to happen? Anyone care to guess?

Nick Foresta

Just some thoughts, no cites - or sites either.

SA: We cannot afford to allow the Saud kingship fall without some idea of what would replace it, and a way to ensure it would not be their "religious" extremists. So instead, Iraq and others in the region will be pressured to make long-term commitments for allowing us to use bases in their countries - and the Saudis (and a few others) will then be given a clear message: keep your killers at home, and do not finance those outside your country, or learn how to drink oil.

Actually, I do think the royals would like to strip the Wahabbists of power, but cannot do so because since the first Saud agreed to make the mullah Wahab's sect the official religion in return for the extremist's help in seizing power (circa 1750), the tail has come to wag the dog.

Iran: I feel hopeful, if the Supreme/Executive council has to put its own troops on the borders the rest of the armed forces will cooperate with the legislature in cutting them out of the government. Yes, the legislature is also top-heavy with religious leaders - but that is in large part because the Executive Council simply did not allow many others to stand for election. What would result might be Islamic, but not Islamist, as best I can tell from the limited news and some Iranian bloggers.

Iraq: I am amazed at the lack of forethought that went into post-invasion plans, and nearly as surprised by how well it has been managing to stumble towards becoming a real nation. As long as the coalition maintains the stance that help is welcome but any attempt to take over (whether UN or EU) will be repulsed, a few years may see an actual government and not a tyranny.

Libya: scary. I want no part of it, it's a lot worse than Afghanistan.

Nick

"Because Reagan "wished" for the demise of the soviet union does not mean he accomplished it. That credit goes to Mr. Gorbachev."

Then how do you explain that Mr. Gorbachev himself gave the credit to Reagan! The Biography Channel has a Bio on Reagan and in it GORBY gives the credit to REAGAN! Don't believe me, then watch the
Bio!

Nick wrote, again in an expression of his psychological refusal to deal with discomforting reality:

"I know for you guys this is difficult to follow but wishing is not the same thing as doing. Because Reagan "wished" for the demise of the soviet union does not mean he accomplished it. That credit goes to Mr. Gorbachev. Did you guys ever hear of Glasnost?"

Oh, so that was Gorbachev's plan to bring down the Soviet Union, disolve the Warsaw Pact, and end the Cold War on terms favorable to America and NATO?

Ishannon:

There is no sense debating Nick, because what we're seeing in him is not a defensible political position, but rather the expression of a psychological problem typical of committed ideologues: for Nick to face the fact that the people he loathe won the Cold War would mean having to grapple with his political ideology and the flaws in it. That simply cannot be faced, so rather than crediting Reagan's successful vision and leadership, he credits Gorbachev's failed attempts to revive the Soviet Union as a viable superpower. That Perestrokia & Glasnost were intended to prevent exactly the outcome that happened, but failed to achieve those ends, while Reagan's vision (note that Nick, the anti-anti-Communist ideologue credits Gorby with a "vision" but Reagan only with wishful thinking, even though it was Reagan's vision that came to pass, not Gorbachev's) succeeded is not something he will be willing to intellectually accept. His mind will refuse to face reality, because it is too unsettling and threatening to the fantasy ideology he clings to.

Boys,

Ya'll are right about one thing. Arguing with you IS pointless.

Both of you have lost the ability to think for yourselves long ago. You don't seem to know what to think until Roger Ailes or Rush tells you. All this discussion about Reagan is a fun exercise. You respond with a comical array of faux pyschobabble and vitriol but you tell me this, would the soviet union have disintegrated had Reagan not been elected? Yes, more than likely. Would it have disintegrated if Mr. Gorbachev had been overthrown by the old bull communists? Probably, but five to ten years later and not peacefully. What, exactly, did Reagan do other than spend money on the military and talk about "star wars", which by the way, still doesn't exist in any viable form? (I mention this, not to begin another round with you two but to point out that it could not have been a determining factor in the demise of the soviet empire...)? What did Mr. Gorbachev do? He offered freedom to organize trade unions in Poland and Romania, Eastern Germany and the Czech Republic. He also refused to use military strength to assist the failing satellite states. You make it seem as if Reagan was sending tanks and aircraft carriers to threaten Moscow unless they dismantled their evil empire. Boys, read a book now and again you see it didn't happen that way. We were merely spectators. That's not to say we, as a nation, didn't win the cold war. We did. And, as I said before, there is a viable argument that Reagan and his policies contributed to that victory. What I take issue with is the denial inherit in an argument that excludes Gorbachev, the people of the Soviet Union, Poland, The Czech Republic, Romania and many other places where they actually took considerable risks for the sake of freedom. To claim Reagan did this all by himself is revisionist. Got it boys? Now go get your shine box!!

Riiight. . .*we're* the ones who can't think for ourselves and take our Marching Orders from Conspiracy HQ. Keep thinkin' that way, Nick - then you'll never have to confront the falsehood in the doctrine you duckspeak.

"What I take issue with is the denial inherit in an argument that excludes Gorbachev, the people of the Soviet Union, Poland, The Czech Republic, Romania and many other places where they actually took considerable risks for the sake of freedom."

I'm not excluding the Poles (that Reagan supported when the Left warned against it), Czechs, Russians, et al.

However, unlike you, I do not confuse Gorbachev's efforts to save the Communist system with efforts to free people from it. Gorbachev's efforts were NOT "a revolutionary call to dismantle the system from the inside" - you clearly haven't a clue what Gorbachev himself has said about his intentions; you just want to fit everything into the perspective of an ideologue, and only now, in a rather desperate attempt to salvage the scraps of your propaganda, do you make mention of the efforts of Russians, Poles, and others to escape and overthrow the system that Gorbachev tried - to the very end - to salvage. It wasn't Gorbachev standing atop a tank, leading the Russian people in seccession from the Soviet Union - Gorbachev opposed that and only dropped his efforts when he realized no one was listening anymore. Gorbachev was only just to the Right of the hard-line Soviets that tried to depose him, but your propagandistic efforts to confuse Perestrokia and Glasnost with an effort to overthrow the Soviet Union and its dominion over East Europe is laughably contrary to the facts - as I'm sure you really know, but cannot, intellectually, accept. Because it would mean you've been on the wrong side of history.

Next Nick will try to tell us that Gorbachev was behind Solidarity in Poland.

Ah, the old standby "Quit listening to Rush", usually brought out by someone who has already demonstrated his own lack of knowledge of an issue.

Well, if he has to say that Gorbachev was the leader and inspiration of the Solidarity movement and the guy that gave it critical support when it needed it so he can continue to disparage the people & policies he and his ilk opposed when the chips were down, then that's what he'll do - he'll be psychologically driven to whatever lengths he needs to.

And then he'll say we're the ones who can't think for ourselves or face facts. Puh-leeze

I just got an e-mail from Rush & Ailes. It said:

"Keep it up. We must keep the TRUTH HIDDEN, no matter how hard the Forestas and their ilk try to expose us. Your service will be rewarded."

The funny thing is, Nick probably thinks I did receive such a mail, and that it included detailed instructions on what to say next, because of course only people who share Nick's beliefs can think up their own arguments, anyone who isn't a Leftist obviously is just mindless sheep. . .that's also part of Nick's ideologue nature, something he gets from others on his wing of the spectrum and a specious non-argument that has been thrown out for years by the Left whenever confronted with people who won't toe their line. Nick is doing a lot of projecting, as usual: he's aping the bogus rhetoric of others on the Left who always claim that the rest of us are just robots who can't think for ourselves. . .which is ironic, since here he is repeating junk put out by others and saying that we're the ones not thinking for ourselves. Pretty pathetic, Nick.

Oh, on the who-is-not-thinking-for-themself but just-parroting-the-party-line front, I almost forgot link

Face it folks, Nick is one of the enemies of freedom and is playing a game of "Communist holocaust denial."

His world crumbled in 1989 and he can no more admit to the evil of Al-Qaeda than to the inate goodness of the United States of America or to the competence and just war aims of the Bush Administration.

It would be best for all of you to ignore "the energy creature."

If Nick starts using profanity or otherwise violates the rules of civility I will delete the posts in question and talk with Joe on how to bounce him from the comments section of any further posts of mine.

Nick,

First off, we are not all male on this blog. Some are MEN (you wouldn’t understand) and some are WOMEN, like myself! Is gender Identification something we are required to give up in your utopian Commie world?

Second, you were the one that asserted, “That credit goes to Mr. Gorbachev."

To that my response was, Then how do you explain that Mr. Gorbachev himself gave the credit to Reagan! The Biography Channel has a Bio on Reagan and in it GORBY gives the credit to REAGAN!

Which you ignored other than to criticize!

YOU then shifted (Shape Shifted if you like) the discussion to what MIGHT have been if this or that had happened. My answer to you on this is who gives a shit! It is irrelevant because we are not playing the children’s game “Riddle me this, Riddle me that”. We are in the REAL world not utopia.

By asking these questions you are really saying “YOU WISH” or it should have happened that way! Which means WE were CORRECT! If we were not you would have given us reasons why we were wrong, instead of your version of “Riddle me this, Riddle me that” or telling us to go read your reeducation books. WE do not want to play your games or read your revisionist books.

If our assertions are revisionist (they are not) then why did Gorby give Reagan the credit?

However, I will note you did give Reagan partial credit by saying, “there is a viable argument that Reagan and his policies contributed to that victory.” No matter how many to times “YOU WISH” them away facts are always facts! Reagan DID end the Cold war! GOT IT LITTLE BOY! Now go play with your plastic shine box!

lshannon

I am always intrigued when someone wants to insist that the role of Gorbachev (et al)in the Cold War was equivalent (if not greater) than the role of the "west".

Nick says:

"He (Gorbachev) also refused to use military strength to assist the failing satellite states." AND "He offered freedom to organize trade unions in Poland and Romania, Eastern Germany and the Czech Republic."

That you choose to see this as a humanitarian gesture is quite remarkable, really.

There were three things that led to the dramatic collapse. The credit goes to two from the "west" and Gorbachev - although not in the way you imply.

#1 Pope John Paul - Had not the Polish people been so adamantly Catholic and had not the Pope made two trips to Poland to show his support - it is unlikely that the Polish people could have been motivated to show "solidarity" against the regime. The regime did all they could to subvert the visit from the Pope - but with the eyes of the world focused upon them, they had little choice. These inspirational visits energized the people and placed the regime in a defensive posture.

#2 Gorbachev - When Gorby came to power, in a secret meeting he advised the satellites that they could not expect the Red Army to assist them if they got into trouble. This message was issued formally in Moscow - November 1986. This was not motivated by humanitarian-ism - but by reality - severely depressed economic conditions and the memories of Afghanistan. Gorby hoped that the status quo could be maintained by this bluff. Poland was the tipping point. When Poland fell, it was the end.

#3 Ronald Reagan - by engaging in military spending, the Soviets were forced to keep pace. Records released during glasnost showed that 40% of the population was "poor" as was 79% of the older people (and that was "poor" by Soviet standards). 2/3rds of homes had no hot water and 1/3rd no running water at all. Non-military per capita was between 15tha and 16th in the world. 30% of foods contained hazardous pesticides. 70% of the air was polluted with 5 times permissible limits of toxic chemicals. 30% of hospitals had no running water. Yet the military expenditures were 25% of GNP (vs 6% for the US).

Reagan's policies brought the Soviet Union to the decision point. Had they not had catastrophic economic conditions, had not Poland embarked on the path made possible by the Pope, Gorby and crew would not have been forced to conceed the satellites to save themselves. Of course, this led to the end of the USSR as well.

Nick says: "Boys, read a book now and again you see it didn't happen that way." I wonder at YOUR selective reading...

(PS I am not catholic - so I have no particular love for the Pope).

The Soviet empire, derived from the lie that is communism, was destined to fail. It certainly could have held on with successive presidents engaging in detente and peace through good intentions, but Reagan and others applied pressure and kept it steady. Down went the hammer and sickle.

Guys, all good points, but again, with Nick it's not a matter of making arguments on intellectual merits, he's psychologically unable to accomodate reality here. We could give him a library of books, articles, government policy documents from the era, &tc &tc and it would make no impact because he simply has to slip reality down the memory hole and replace it with a different picture.

And in that, he's not thinking for himself, for all that he accuses us of not doing so - he's following a line promulgated by similar sorts, who had to construct a text that would allow themselves and people like Nick (and Tom, and klaatu, and others like them) to preserve the illusions of their fantasy ideology into the future.

However, having read what these people were saying and arguing back then, there is a clear disconnect between the line that they're putting out now and what they actually said and did and how they interpreted various Soviet leaders, including Gorbachev. Having read the stuff from the period in question, people of Nick's viewpoint were not saying Gorbachev was going to overthrow the Soviet Union, they were claiming he would revitalize it and we Americans should reject the confrontational policies of Reagan because we were going to have to live with the rival superpower and accomodate it for the indefinate future.

Nick and his ilk cannot deal with the fact that they were on the wrong side of history then, just as they are now, so they blot it out and replace empirical reality with something that is more acceptable, from a psychological standpoint, to them: it allows them to pretend that they aren't the ones who were wrong, we are (actually, I wasn't so right back then, myself).

We can see that Nick isn't thinking for himself in how he duckspeaks the line about Limbaugh et al - raise of hands, how many people here think Nick is a regular listener to Limbaugh and the other sorts he criticizes?

No, he's just parotting a line that he read elsewhere and thought "hey, that's a good way to dismiss anything people say that I don't like, I'll copy that" - it's, as I said in a comment to another post, the "magic words" for the Left: if you say "talk radio" or "Rush" or "Fox" or "Ailes" or "Dittoheads", then any argument you don't like vanishes in a magical *poof* so you don't have to deal with it on its merits. It's akin to Jeanie crossing her arms and *blinking* away a problem or Samantha twitching her nose and causing something to disapear by magic.

That works in fiction, but it further shows that they're living out a fantasy. In the real world, it's not a sufficient counter-argument to say "Limbaugh" or even "Abracadabra"

(and gals; sorry, Ishannon. No disrespect intended when I say "guys. I really should just write "dudes and dudessas").

Trent,

I didn't use any "profanity" and who cares if you delete my posts.

For the record, I am not a communist or an idealogue.
I have as much love for this country as any one of you. Making a point about the the right's obsession with crediting Reagan for the fall of communism, to the exclusion of all the other factors involved, is not the same thing as supporting communism. Plus, I didn't deny that Reagan and his policies played a part in their downfall. Nor am under any illusions about Gorbachev's motives. My goal here was to highlight the other factors involved in the collapse of the system.

The whole point of this little exercise was that there is no validity to your assertations regarding the Bush Administration and the Saudis. I see THAT thread hasn't been discussed. Why is that? Because, if we look at what this administration has actually done vis-a-vis the Saudi's instead of what you hope for or surmise, your orginal argument falls apart. The fall of the soviet system is no different. It was not planned in advance by some think tank wannabes in the basement of the White House as ya'll imply. It fell for a variety of reasons but mostly from the rot and corruption at it's heart. Maybe the Saudi system would fall much the same way but we as a nation, under both democratic and republican presidents, never offered the kind of coddling and support to Russia that we have for the Saudi royal family.

BTW--the armchair pyschology on this site is great. It's nice to know ya'll are here. Can any of you write perscriptions? I need some Paxil to get me through these dark times...

To Ishannon: Sorry, I didn't realize my gender gaffe.

Nick Foresta

Oh Yeah, something I forgot to address in that last post...

"Then how do you explain that Mr. Gorbachev himself gave the credit to Reagan! The Biography Channel has a Bio on Reagan and in it GORBY gives the credit to REAGAN!"

I didn't see this program but who Gorbachev gives credit to is quite beside the point. It is history that will ultimately judge who should get credit. I would hazard to guess that outside these united states, the view of the fall of communism and Reagan's involvement in it are seen much differently.

Think of it like this, an actor may credit any number of people for his success but we still give him the oscar...

Nick Foresta

Nick wrote:

"who cares if you delete my posts."

Well, at first I might have, because they were mildly amusing. But now they're just boring; they've always lacked any intellectual merit, so from that standpoint you're right, Nick - no one loses anything when your posts are deleted. I'll give you credit for recognizing that much.

"For the record, I am not a communist or an idealogue."

Well, you're certainly the latter, Nick - a blind "don't confuse me with the facts" idealogue.

"
Making a point about the the right's obsession with crediting Reagan for the fall of communism, to the exclusion of all the other factors involved, is not the same thing as supporting communism."

Which is revision of your own point; again, not only have people like you slipped down the memory hole their own position in the '80s when it mattered - which was appolexy at Reagan's support for the dissidents you're only now invoking as a shield against reality - but you slip down the memory hole what you yourself wrote just the other day and was at issue: your attempt to credit Gorbachev (not the dissidents who were against the Soviet System and worked from within to bring it down - a goal that was NOT Gorbachev's vision, and an achievement that took place in SPITE of his leadership, not because of it. And all those people you are only now talking about have spoken to the effect of how much they valued the support that people like Reagan, Thatcher, and the Americans here that you are contemptuous towards - claiming they are thoughtless - who gave them support, rhetorical and materiel, when guys like you were warning against upseting the Soviets in such a way and wringing their hands over the diplomatic problems that you all claimed would result, since the view of your side in this at the time was that the Soviets would be around indeffinately - guys like you were hardly claiming the Soviet Union was about to go under; quite the contrary).

"The whole point of this little exercise was that there is no validity to your assertations regarding the Bush Administration and the Saudis. I see THAT thread hasn't been discussed."

That has actually been discussed (again, something you're slipping down the memory hole, proving again that you're an ideologue trying to avoid uncomfortable facts when they don't fit in with your view) - which is, indeed, how we got to this point in the discussion - and will be discussed again. However, your baseless assertions and distorted, willfully deceptive version of reality, and vapid accusations will contribute nothing of value to such a discussion, just as you have nothing but fantasy revisionism to contribute to discussion of the past.

Time to wade in here re: Mr. Foresta. Y'all are welcome, but it's our place. We have a great comments section here, and intend to keep it that way. That means enforcement when necessary, but recall too that one of the words on our sign up top is "Liberty."

Here in our salon (or is it a saloon?), we want everyone to have a good time and learn a few things along the way. If someone consistently derails discussions with off-topic posts or otherwise violates our Comments policy, warnings will be issued and the bouncers may be summoned. That said, this isn't some tinpot university here like Cal Poly. Disagreement does not equal disruptiveness.

I know Mr. Foresta's history, and I'm mindful of it. Everything I've seen so far in this thread has been civil, though, and his point that Bush has Saudi ties of his own is indisputable. So is the "deceptive" point re: Saudi policy at least. Consider: if Trent is right, it's a deceptive policy - and ditto if Trent is wrong.

Welcome to the world of international diplomacy, otherwise known as "the art of saying 'nice doggie' until you can find a rock."

I'll also point out that your responses to Mr. Foresta about the end of the Cold War have been good ones, and add to the value of this post. In this instance, it seems, Tony's presence hasn't all been negative. As for the insults, well, I see them on both sides here. Both sides believe them to be deserved, of course, and though I side with P.'s views I can acknowledge Tony's.

Per our Winds of Change.NET comments policy, Trent has full control over his own posts, including deleting comments. If he chooses to go further and ban a reader from his comments sections, that ban would NOT extend to other team members' posts here, UNLESS the reader in question refuses to abide by Trent's request. In which case yes, I'll back my team member up with an IP ban.

Hope this clarifies. Playing nice isn't a requirement here on Winds of Change.NET - but playing clean and playing fair are.

Porphyrogenitus,

Now who's "projecting"? You read something that you disagree with and from that, you extract all kinds of thoughts and positions and apply them to me. Is this what our political discourse has come to? Being a moderate democrat somehow makes me a communist sympathizer? Your comments about what I believe or
what I supported in the '80's have no basis. Contrary to your posts, not all democrats were the equivalent of our far left fringe. Just as not all republicans or conservatives are in total argreement with the far right fringe. If you can't discuss an issue and stay on point then this is fruitless. I have no problem defending positions that I take. I've thought about them and made a choice as to what I beleive is right or wrong. I try very hard to do this in spite of ideology. Sure, more often then not I find myself in agreement with
moderate democratic thought but that does not make me unamerican. It is this belief on the part of the right that anyone who holds an opposing view is the enemy. I am not your enemy. Nor am I an enemy of
freedom or liberty. Those things are more than just words. It's this that is at the heart of any disagree we may have. This opinion of many on the right that if you disagree with them, you're not a good american. I really don't care what any of you think about my patriotic credentials. I know how I feel about being american and disagreeing with our government and speaking out about it is the definition of freedom and liberty. If you want to limit that, then those things are words without any meaning for you. It's a problem that very few are willing to recognize. When the speaker of the house of representatives (Hastert) can accuse the minority leader of the senate (Daschle) of "aiding and abetting" the enemy for pointing out the dismal attempts at diplomacy this administration displayed before the Iraq war, and yet completely ignore the actual aiding and abetting done by our Saudi freinds(see the wife of the Saudi foriegn minister)
then those words have been effectively rendered meaningless. You can delete my posts all you like but that doesn't make you right and me wrong. All it does is highlight the spaciousness of your arguments...

Nick Foresta

To Joe Katzman Et,al,

Just so there is no confusion...

Tony and I are not the same person. He's my brother.
Sometimes we agree and sometimes we don't. He will continue to be my brother and my friend either way.

Nick Foresta

Nick,

To the question of who gets or deserves credit you stated, Think of it like this, an actor may credit any number of people for his success but we still give him the oscar...

You started to far down the food chain in your analogy. When Gorby gave credit to Reagan he WAS the Academy and he GAVE the Oscar to Reagan. Also, remember Gorby's statement giving Reagan credit is part of the histroy and will be factored into said history.

As to the other issues in your posts Porphyrogenitus did a great job at debunking and countering them so I will not waste time or space.

All apologies in relation to gender are accepted. I think the majority of females consider the the word "guys" neutral but the word "boys" is not.

Well, oil is now over $32 a barrel and experts in the oil market expect it to remain high for the rest of this year. A lot of money is flowing to the Saudis. The Iraqi oil field production is increasing too slowly. Venezuelan production is falling. World demand is rising.

The US needs a strategy that will up the production of oil from non-Muslim oil fields and also the development of non-fossil fuel energy sources. I do not see brilliance emanating from the Bush Administration on either of these scores.

"Is this what our political discourse has come to?"

It's become what you made it, in your refusal to face things honestly and your insistance upon speciously crediting Gorbachev with having the vision of ending the Soviet Union, when he didn't, and crediting his leadership with its demise, when it was his failure, combined with the successful efforts of those opposed to him, who led to its demise, though you tried to disparage them.

"Is this what our political discourse has come to?"

That's laughable comming from the man who introduced the meme of "anyone who doesn't agree with me isn't thinking for themselves and thus all their arguments can be dismissed out of hand as just Limbaughisms" into the debate. Again, who is projecting? You are, Nick. You bring down the level of debate to insults, empty slogans, vacuous assertions (such as the assertion about Gorbachev's vision & leadership assertion), deny the position your side had during the debates of the '80s, misportray not only the arguments others have made in these debates but also and importantly your own (sorry, chummer; you didn't invoke Walesa, Sakarov, and other brave dissidents, as you're now trying to claim, and I'm not going to let you get away with slipping your argument down the memory hole so that you can accuse us of not crediting the right people with resistance to the Soviet system), and then when you're called on this you decry the level the debate has fallen to - while absolving yourself of your culpability in just that.

"Contrary to your posts, not all democrats were the equivalent of our far left fringe."

I was a moderate Democrat in the '80s and I know just where they stood. They didn't stand with the far Left in supporting the Soviets actively, but neither did they support Reagan's policy of "rollback" (not moderate Democrats, that is - a few conservative ones bucked their party and did so).

Their position was exactly as I described: handwringing over Reagan's confrontational policies and insistance, contrary to your assertion, that we would have to learn to live with the Soviet Union because it was going to be around indefinately, and so we shouldn't do anything radical (like giving active support to dissidents in the Eastern Bloc) that would make diplomatic relations with them more difficult. They did not believe Gorbachev was going to overthrow the Soviet Union (that assertion is revisionism on your part), but rather that he was going to revitalize it and thus it made learning how to deal with it in a less confrontational manner all the more important.

"Sure, more often then not I find myself in agreement with moderate democratic thought but that does not make me unamerican. It is this belief on the part of the right that anyone who holds an opposing view is the enemy. I am not your enemy. Nor am I an enemy of freedom or liberty."

Again, you're the one projecting, because I never said that you were - I simply said that you are on the wrong side of history now just as you were then, and that you're views are clouded by your ideological mindset, which is true. I'm questioning not your patriotism or your love of liberty, but your judgement, which is clearly skewed.

The fact that you'd rather credit Gorbachev with being the revolutionary with the vision of a world without the Soviet Union and the East Bloc and with the leadership that led to an end of the Cold War on the West's terms is evidence of that - it does tend to say something about your attitude towards American policy in the era, though, just as your remarks about those of us who don't share your delusions being unthinking exposes your attitudes about multi-party democracy.

"disagreeing with our government and speaking out about it is the definition of freedom and liberty."

That line does indicate something insidious about your patriotism, though; I hadn't questioned it before, but the sort of people who say "real patriotism is defined by opposing your country" - well, that's a twisted view at best.

Real patriotism doesn't mean blindly supporting whatever the country does, but neither is it defined by opposing it, either. Indeed, that's the sort of specious assertion usually made by those who are simply trying to deflect criticism; it's interesting that you go into a long screed about me questioning your patriotism when I didn't, as a means to deflect from the issue. It's a tool used by your ilk frequently to delegitimize any criticism or disagreement with you. The implied tone there is that since I'm not toeing your line, and your behavior represents "the definition of freedom and liberty", then I'm the one opposed to it. Bovine fecal matter.

You have the freedom to disagree, but simply disagreeing with the policies of your country is not "the definition of freedom and liberty." But guys like you never do understand the scope of liberty, which doesn't boil down to gainsaying anything the government does.

"All it does is highlight the spaciousness of your arguments"

Actually, the fact that you invariably ignore our arguments and engage in distraction and change-of-subject sleight of hand exposes the emptyness of your arguments. I've noticed that every time someone makes a point that you have trouble confronting, you simply change the subject (now we're on to discussing the definition of patriotism, mainly because you're on weak ground with respect to the substantive points that I and others made in refuting your "Gorbachev gets the credit" assertions, and you switched to that topic mainly because you couldn't handle the arguments people put forward before that, and on down the line). So, once again - you're projecting.

The black out prevented my involvement in this little discourse, but my brother Nick has I see carried the torch well and truly.

Rightwingideologues and truebelievers hold to these Manichean overly simplistic ideas with religious passion.

Reagan was President, when Gorbachev ushered the Soviet empire and the people of Russian toward Glasnost and eventual democracy, which was fortunate, but certainly not planned. There was no stated Reagan policy or agenda claiming the US planned to spend the Russians to death. Many converging political, economic, and military vectors contributed at the time to the fall of the Soviet Union, and hoisting the collapse on Reagan is simply false. It is part of the rightwingideologue homilies that glorify your vaunted saints for victories never fought, and wars not won, and ignore the glaring realities of failure, abuse, and neglect.

Reagan was also president when 241 marines were slaughtered in Beirut and did nothing.

Reagan was president when the radical abuses of Iran Contra / Octopus debacle came to light and were conveniently swept off the radar.

The point now is, we are talking about Bush, not Reagan abuses, neglect, and failures.

Rightwingideologues and truebeleivers typical response to questions (such as why do you tolerate Bush aiding and abetting the Saudi's who aid and abet jihadist islamic mass murderers, including al Queda?) is to slime the questioner, (ridiculous, and completely baseless unsubstantiated accusations of anti-Americanism) and misdirect the questions onto toward one of the homilies Rove, and the gospel according to Fox proselytize. Bush is a man of business acumen, compassionate conservative, uniter not divider, good ole boy christain warrior, and the real comedic fictions and hero worship pertaining to Reagan's fortunate timing when the Soviet Union fell, blah, blah, blah.

Reagan's, Carters, old Bush, and Clintons abuses, failures, and neglect are subjects for historians, boy Bush's fundamentalist republican oligarchy's radical redefining, shaming, and bankrupting of America are immediate concerns, and we have the right raise questions and demand dislosure.

I will refer you gentle people to the I, III, IV, V, VI Amendments of the Constitution and remind you all it is pro - not anti- American to challenge failing, abusive, and deceptive policies of our leadership.

Mr. P,

" You forget that George Dubya's national security team were the folks that murdered the Soviet Union. This is thier signature style."

This was from Trent. THIS is what began the whole Gorbachev thread.

"(sorry, chummer; you didn't invoke Walesa, Sakarov, and other brave dissidents, as you're now trying to claim, and I'm not going to let you get away with slipping your argument down the memory hole so that you can accuse us of not crediting the right people with resistance to the Soviet system)"

Where exactly in that quote from Trent is the credit to the brave dissidents?

"I was a moderate Democrat in the '80s and I know just where they stood."

Really? Are you saying that two words, "moderate democrat" provide all you need to know? Again, this type of statement proves my point. You were a moderate democrat, however you define that, therefore you know what I believed in the '80's, that I hate GWB, blah, blah, blah...It's a tired argument. As for me "projecting", the most I ever said about anyone on this site or anywhere else what that ya'll have a problem thinking for yourselves. I still feel that way. It may not be how you feel but is it the equivalent of this?

"Face it folks, Nick is one of the enemies of freedom and is playing a game of "Communist holocaust denial."'

Enemy of freedom? Yeah, I'm downright dangerous.
Communist holocaust denial? Where did I defend communism? Even a little? You may think that only conservatives opposed the soviet union but it's just not true.

"That line does indicate something insidious about your patriotism, though; "

Very nice. You read between the lines and decide my brand of patriotism is "insidious". There are people who disagree with this administration about most things. I am one of them. You try and back out of the underlying message with this little rhetorical trick.

"Real patriotism doesn't mean blindly supporting whatever the country does, but neither is it defined by opposing it, either. "

So opposition doesn't make me unpatriotic but really it does.

As for addressing these Gorbachev arguments, I don't really disagree with many of them. The dissidents deserve credit, so does the west in general (which is different then JUST Reagan BTW).
Many of you have a valid point about Gorbachev and his "vision". My intend was not to imply that Gorbachev had this in mind with Glasnost, he obviously didn't. He DID envision a more constructive relationship with the west. That alone was a radical idea for most committed communists. He realized the system was unsustainable for much longer and, to his credit, he did not react to the changes happening in Eastern Europe the way any of his predecessors would have.

"(now we're on to discussing the definition of patriotism, mainly because you're on weak ground with respect to the substantive points that I and others made in refuting your "Gorbachev gets the credit" assertions, and you switched to that topic mainly because you couldn't handle the arguments people put forward before that, and on down the line). So, once again - you're projecting."

No, we are not discussing patriotism at all. I only said the stuff said here, (I acknowledge, not specifically by you..) questioning mine are way off base and an indication of a lack of real thought.

"...refuting your "Gorbachev gets the credit" assertions, and you switched to that topic mainly because you couldn't handle the arguments people put forward before that..."

What argument did people put forward before that?
Did anyone really refute my point about this secret Bush plan to remove the Saudis? There were a few half-attempts but sorry chummer, no dice.

So, delete if you need to, I'm not here to change your mind. Hopefully someone, after reading the orginal essay and these comments, will take some of this PysOpsWar garbage a little less seriously.

Nick Foresta

Nick dissembled further:

"This was from Trent. THIS is what began the whole Gorbachev thread."

Trent can best defend his own points, but it was very clear to me that he was simply highlighting the credentials of the people handling this current war, the folks you scoff at, and his interpretation of how it will apply here. YOU were the one who invoked Gorbachev, not he.

"Where exactly in that quote from Trent is the credit to the brave dissidents?"

That's not how you responded to him; again, you're trying to be deceptive regarding not only his point, but yours. If you wonder what brings down the level of debate in this country, look no further than your own shady debating tactics.

"Really? Are you saying that two words, "moderate democrat" provide all you need to know?"

Again, projecting: as if your own assertion of being a "moderate Democrat" proves that you are (any arguments you might make that aren't really evidence of that to the contrary notwithstanding); I chose to take you at your word, but I probably shouldn't have. My bad.

"Again, this type of statement proves my point. You were a moderate democrat, however you define that, therefore you know what I believed in the '80's, that I hate GWB, blah, blah, blah...It's a tired argument."

Well, you do have a point to the degree that you can't even keep straight what your position was three days ago, much less fifteen years ago. I suppose next you'll say that although you credit Gorbachev with everything, in the '80s you were firmly in support of Reagan's policies vis a vi the Soviet Union, and we'll be expected to believe that.

Regarding G.W.B., the things you write and say speaks volumes. But, again, you're attributing to me something I never said. In all the responses to you, I don't recall saying you hate Bush - you're the one who defined yourself as opposing him.

"No, we are not discussing patriotism at all."

Then I guess three quarters of your post from earlier today was pointless. That's essentially all it consisted of.

"I acknowledge, not specifically by you."

At least now you aknowledge that. Your earlier post attributed such things to me in that it was in response to me - and, essentially boiled down to your only response to what I had written.

"As for addressing these Gorbachev arguments, I don't really disagree with many of them."

Well, if you had said that - and made the point you're now claiming to have intended to make - then a lot of this would have been terminated. However, instead you kept digging your own hole. No one dug it for you. No one forced you to attribute everything to Gorbachev's vision or to claim that Glasnost (you left out Perestrokia, but even though according to you I don't read anything, I managed to mention that. Odd, since the folks you said I get my thoughts from wouldn't have mentioned even Glasnost. But, again - you're not contributing to the lowering of the level of debate here, just guys like me.)

"What argument did people put forward before that?"

I'll let them defend themselves on that. As far as the House of Saud stuff and why I haven't entered that aspect of things, it's because I don't believe I have anything intelligent to say on the subject at this point. I don't think you do, either, but where it hasn't stopped you, I prefer to keep my own council until I have a firmer grasp of the facts. My thoughts, such as they are, are posted here, and have been since the day after Trent made this "Long Goodbye" post.

I responded here on the Gorbachev thing because there I do (and clearly did, since you now conceed that you "don't disagree" with the points I made) have something intelligent to say about that, because - again, contrary to the assertions you made, I have a fairly good knowledge base on that.

To the degree to which you were way off base on that assertion, and then tried to cover rather than conceed that your own initial arguments there were flawed though I give you credit for essentially doing so now, it - at best - made your judgement on Bush & the House of Saud questionable at best; your interpretation of the fall of the Soviet Union and Gorbachev's vision & leadership being so profoundly flawed (at least in what you said in the posts I was responding to), it certainly left more than a little doubt about whether your interpretation of current policy was any sounder or any less driven by ideological blinders.

While you're pointing fingers at Trent, you're neglecting to accept that you made at least the same error you're claiming he did - though I'm not sure he did make that error, since he was, as I said, simply refering to the experience and background of the people handling our foreign policy now, and in that context, within the scope of what is a comment post, not a book, economy of language made it acceptable to keep the focus where he had it.

"sorry chummer"

I'll have to remember you bogarted my "sorry chummer" phrase the next time you claim that I can't think for myself.

"an indication of a lack of real thought."

Oh, lamentations! The corsening of debate!

Note that I only invoke that since you did - folks who know me reasonably well will know that I respond to the tone of the debate as it already exists. I'm more than willing to make my points without verbal jabs; however, when I see folks like you who are doing that, well I believe in responding in kind. That might be bad, but the counter-productive tone started with your tone, Nick, and those of your compatriots.

If and when you're willing to start over with a "new tone" (where have I heard that phrase before? Hmmmn. . .I guess I should read more, I might remember), I for one will be more than willing to meet you on the terms you set.

But as far as I'm concerned, if you, like klaatu and others, want to make cheap-shots and contempt the tone of your posts, then you shouldn't complain as you have when it's reciprocated, and bemoan how the level of debate in this country has corsened.

Again, that is a very typical attitude of so many non-Conservatives (whether moderate Democrat, Liberal, or Left, or whatever) - when they call people stupid or not able to think for themselves, or speak contemptuously of those who don't share their viewpoints (broadly speaking), that's one thing. But when the favor is returned, then, and only then, we need to get concerned over how the level of discourse is sinking in this country.

And, by the by, that's another attitude I remember from way back, though I didn't really like that then, either.

One more I forgot:

"So, delete if you need to, I'm not here to change your mind."

1) I don't delete your comments here, or advocate their deletion (though I do say, in agreement with you, that no one will care - and no one will miss them. At least unless and until their tone changes to deal more with substance and less with - well, what they have been).

2) What are you here for, making arguments (or claiming to make arguments) for, if not to try and persuade people? Just to be a pest and a nusance?

Perhaps that explains why the tone of your posts are as they are: the purpose isn't to try and make a convincing argument on the merits (you're not trying to change people's minds or persuade them, by your own assertion).

I donno why you're bothering to post, though, if you're not trying to convince people. Perhaps you could explain what the purpose of your posts are, if they aren't intended to try and change people's minds?

Mr. P,

Most of this is just a re-hash of the already tired old arguments but it's an unplanned day off here in NYC and I have some time so let's try again.

Re: Trent and his orginal "pysOpsWar"/Bush's National Security team murdered the soviets.

"Trent can best defend his own points, but it was very clear to me that he was simply highlighting the credentials of the people handling this current war, the folks you scoff at, and his interpretation of how it will apply here. YOU were the one who invoked Gorbachev, not he."

Yes, I disagree with the premise that Reagan deserves soul credit for the fall of communism. Are you saying that is not what's implied when he says this?

" You forget that George Dubya's national security team were the folks that murdered the Soviet Union. This is thier signature style."

I have consistently argued that Gorbachev deserves more credit than Reagan. I never said it was his intent, just that he had a larger impact on the overall events than did Reagan. And by "Reagan", I mean him and his administration.

The tone doesn't bother me. It's the "enemy of freedom" and implied "communist sympathizer" comments that I find offensive. Again, I'm not sitting here crying over what ya'll think, I only wanted to point out the shear invective of this claim and that there is nothing in anything I've written here that would imply it.

As for what I said three days ago, I don't see any disconnection. But you think whatever it is that you think. The orginal point of this essay and my dissection of it remain unchallenged.

NF

Tony writes: "I will refer you gentle people to the I, III, IV, V, VI Amendments of the Constitution and remind you all it is pro - not anti- American to challenge failing, abusive, and deceptive policies of our leadership."

I'll remember that the next time President Bush quarters troops in my home.

Sheesh.

Read this

link

The shameless and despicable exploitation of 9/11 to opportunistically market the Bush fundamentalist republican oligarchy's colonization of Iraq, the dim, misguided, and stupidly unattainable Pax American war agenda, and the radical ravaging the bill of rights are the true anti-American activities and blind partisan support or defense of such perfidious conduct is damning in and of itself.

Tony, does that rhetoric come with a dimmer switch?

If your points are serious, and backed up, laying it on so thick isn't necessary. Indeed, it devalues your arguments and fuels suspicion of them, rather than adding extra force. I'm assuming that's not the effect you're looking for.

I'm also noting here that this comment has no perceived relevance to the subject of the post... and that's not kosher under the Comments Policy.

Especially when arguing in the lion's den, as it were, there's a lot to be said for an understated demeanor. As for being on topic, consider this a friendly reminder. If Trent steps in next time under our Comments Policy, I can't vouch for the friendliness.

I appreciate the English lesson Joe, but I would counter that my comment though not "understated' was on topic with reference to one of the many "protections" being eroded by the present leaderhip, and in direct response to the comment from R Roberts.

Admittedly, this line of argument relating to rights, freedoms, and protections is off topic from the original essay, but it was not me who introduced this line, and further we of the left (your fellow Americans by the way) must bring these issues to light, since the common response to our and particularly my questioning of Bush policies and agenda is to ban, silence, slime, or demonize any and every opposing view, a practice I would argue is patently un-American.

As to the "friendliness" or lack thereof, it is something I am quite familiar with since I oppose many of the Bush policies, and have become quite used to personal attack and evasion, distortion, or misdirection of the issues.

Really, Joe, do you wonder about the sanity of someone who posts a link claiming it would make me "weep" about Ashcroft when the link is an article dating to months before President Bush was even elected discussing Posse Comitatus?

I strongly urge you to rethink your overly generous comments policy - quickly.

I would strongly urge you to review the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, Robin Roberts.

It seems the Foresta "twins" are cut from the same cloth...

This quote:"...herr Ashcroft, and herr Ridge are working feverishly and invidiously now to erode the rights, freedoms, and protections American's formally held dear under the cloaked and deceptive guise of the never ending nebulous war on terrorism."

People like this ignore the fact that there are sunset provisions - Item #1. Other aspects of the Patriot Act under assault by the left are often mentioned without clarification of the restrictions - Item #2 (i.e. the right to enter a home and conduct a search without notice must be approved by a judge with notice provided after the fact). Far greater restrictions on civil liberties have been enacted in the past when warranted and all were rescinded once the threat passed - Item #3 (Lincoln suspended the writ of habeus corpus).

The left presumes several things in it's disdain for the Patriot Act, Ridge, Ashcroft, et al.
#1 Curtailment of civil liberties is a permanent alteration of the status quo.
#2 There are no checks and balances on controversial aspects of the Act
#3 Many aspects of the Patriot Act seek to undue the damage done by the left to intelligence and criminal procedures since the 70s.

But by far, the left (true to form) values the rights of the few over the rights of the many. To the left, better one terrorist escape detection than 10 innocents be surveiled.

I personally would like Mr. Foresta to precisely explain what "invidious erosions" he is referring to with his statement and offer a better method for dealing with the threat of terrorism.

Tony, I didn't ask for your opinion on whether or not this was a violation of the comments policy. I asked you to desist and return to the subject, or cease. You did neither, issuing instead a declaration of intent to continue.

P., feeding the troll does not help matters.

What we've got here is a discussion that has nothing to do with the substance of the original post. The people here on this blog work pretty hard to put these up, and it's a damn shame when that goes to waste.

Tony, if you can't work to enhance these discussions and keep them on topic, you will no longer be welcome in this place. Others have figured out how to disagree here and still show respect for the poster's time and the topics, and I suggest you join them quickly. Consider this your Yellow Card.

As it has ceased to be productive, I am also closing this thread rather than have it take up any more of our storage space.