It gets more interesting in that, at least according to reports, the ISI was on site with the U.S. (likely SEAL) team that conducted the operation. So they didn't share intelligence with the Pakistanis, but they brought them along, or at least told them where to show up and when. How did that work?
The way this went down is going to be very interesting, and I agree with Member: this sounds like it happened the way the "War on Terror" should have been happening all along. I suppose when you have a military with a budget larger than the rest of the world's combined, you're tempted to use as much of it as you can when you've got something to use it for.
Blücher, by the way, crazy or not, was a military genius, whose tactical successes in 1806, even when the end result was Prussian defeat, were amazing, particularly given the disadvantages he had. The American Civil War may have produced some impressive generals, but for the most part, American generals can't touch the European greats.
If I'm not mistaken, the elephant thing actually happened in 1806, after Prussias defeat, when he was quite physically ill, though apocryphal versions of the story have him saying something to that effect to Wellington, and sometimes add (at least I think this part is apocryphal) that he believed he had been impregnated with the elephant by a French grenadier, but I’m pretty sure whoever it was that impregnated him with an elephant, it happened almost a decade before Waterloo.
That wasn't his only little breakdown, either. At one point, he thought his head had turned to stone, and there's a possibly apocryphal story that he believed for a while that his staff was composed of French agents who were trying to burn his feet, so that when he sat he made sure to lift his feet, and when he stood he stood on one foot, alternating feet frequently (I read jumped from one foot for the other, but that's almost too funny to be believed). Apparently he had bouts of this mental... illness over the last couple decades of his life. To modern ears, it sounds like he may have had some sort of frontal lobe epilepsy or brain swelling or something. That or he was just coocoo for coco puffs.
Also, by anti-rationalist, do you mean anti-Rationalist, as in anti-philosophical rationalism, the position that paces the intellect and Reason over the senses and the empirical as a (or perhaps in its extreme form, the) source of knowledge, or do you mean simply anti-reason. If it’s the latter, then see the second sentence in my previous comment. If it’s the former, then eh. Nietzsche was an empiricst, even a naturalist (particularly in his later works), and not an enemy of reason, though he felt it too should be the subject of critique (his major criticism of Kant was that his critique of reason didn’t go far enough: it stopped just when it was on the point of actually accomplishing something). He was, however, certainly an enemy of Rationalism. I’ve always been under the impression that Rand had significant Rationalist tendencies, but wasn’t full-blown Rationalist ala Leibniz. I could be wrong, though.
Ha. I'm not sure Bob would disagree with that, which saddens me in a way. People like Bob who've been so steeped in the southern mythology of that war and its southern actors that they've lost any ability to recognize facts, do sadden me, I suppose because I saw it happen to so many of my friends, and that mythology is so... morally damaging.
Riiiiiiight. The south seceding, firing on federal troops, siezing federal land and supplies, etc., had nothing to do with it. It was all Lincoln's fault, because he did what?
Add Jefferson Davis in there, of course. And I'd say that Lee and Davis were much greater traitors than Arnold, since, you know, they actually committed treason that resulted in 600,000 dead Americans.
No, not universally. Lee was particularly harsh with his slaves. What's more, much of what we know of Lee personally is a post-war myth (e.g., he was distinctly anti-abolition, pro-secession, etc., despite more than a century of claims that he didn't want Virginia to secede and was at least sympathetic to the anti-slavery cause, but simply couldn't abandon Virginia). His personal papers, which only became available relatively recently, paint a quite different picture from the "universally" recognized one of the last century and a half.
Grant was a better strategist than any general in the South. Lee may have been a brilliant tactician, though Grant was probably his match, but Lee couldn't hold a candle to Grant strategically. This is why the South lost Gettysburg, for example, though the tactical mistakes, such as letting the Union troops take the high ground, were pretty glaring on the Confederate side as well. Longstreet was a great tactician, as was Forrest. I think the only high ranking Confederate general who had both strategic and tactical abilities that matched Grant's and Sherman's was Jackson (I can guarantee you that Jackson would have taken Cemetary Hill without hesitation; without Jackson, Lee looked near ordinary).
Plus, the South had Hood, who pretty much cancels out the rest ;).
Also, aside from Hitler's military ineptitude, there's nothing ideological about the defeat of the Nazis. They lost because they were fighting on two fronts against nations with more resources, both natural and human, and their philosophy of war production was outdated. It's nice to have the best tools -- the best machine gun, the best tank, the best artillery, the best assault rifle -- but you have to be able to produce enough of them, and be able to repair them easily and quickly, for them to be effective, even when you have the best trained troops.
One wonders, if it were an ideological failure that caused them to lose the war, why they did so strikingly well early on. And lest you suggest that this was before the U.S. entered the war, recall that for much of the time that the U.S. was in the war, 70-80% of the German army was thousands of miles to the East of any American troops, and the Germans never lost an even fight to the Americans. They lost that war because they ran out of men, and gas, and tanks, and planes, and because they made several strategic blunders (particularly in the East) that were more costly than the strategic blunders of the Allies (e.g., Market Garden), because they had a significantly smaller margin for error.
Hahahahaha... OK, sorry Tom, I just find people this predictable to be amusing. Congrats, BSK, you've brought Tom to his "I win!" moment.
Seriously though, Tom, that you see these things so clearly us-against-them situations (and often, in your case, us against the world) says a whole hell of a lot. Not quite so much as the fact that you think well-to-do white Christian males are the victims in our our political environment, but still a whole hell of a lot.
Because a very small number of communists have voted Democrat at some point in history, "commie-dem" isn't off base? By that reasoning, I'm certain that "fascist-repub" and even "nazi-repub" aren't off base. And I say this as someone who wishes there were real socialists among the Democrats.
Haha... at some point, this really just looks like post hoc rationalization. Yeah, the Republicans are increasing the deficit, but spending cuts, therefore smaller government, and the Republicans are the ones who really care about deficits! And while Republicans have been very clear about not raising taxes, even on the rich (when 80% of the country wants the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to end, and there's no fiscal reason to keep them), secretly they're the ones who will raise taxes, because, you know, nth dimensional chess and all that.
I wish I could take any of this seriously, but it really just looks like... well, it doesn't look like anything serious.
But in the vast group that comprises the entire party rank and file I’ve no doubt one can find some and if you include historically it’s a near certainty.
That's wonderful. So you can't think of any Democrats who are or were communists, but you're certain that in the past and how the Democratic party, particularly in its left wing, contained many a communist. Got ya.
Can you name some communists in the Democratic party? I'll settle for one, though two or three would be best. And Bernie Sanders, who's not a communist, and not a Democrat, won't do.
Tom, yeah, that reminds me of the old Positive Liberty days. Backed yourself into a corner, decide that instead of trying to get out, you'll just tell the world you've won, and leave. If this weren't the case you could, for example, point to one place where I've misunderstood you. Since I've kept to your actual words, that won't be an easy task.
And by the way, I didn't say anything to imply you're endorsing fideism. You're doing nothing of the sort, as you're not even pretending faith, just choice. You'd make a good Sartrean. But it's true, I was participating in bad faith. I just wanted to get you to the "I win" moment, because it's amusing. I was a bit bored today.
If you wanted a real discussion, from me or from pretty much anyone here (you'll notice you don't get them from anyone but Ivolgin and Voegelin), you'd have to start arguing rather than throwing up flares.
I didn't take the football away. I let you take it away from yourself. When you start from the position that your view is better because it's firmly grounded in metaphysical certainty, and end up at the view that, eh, I just chose to go with this metaphysics because it works out better than other things we've tried, it's not I who's taken anything away from you or your position. You did it all yourself. Well done.
Tom, it's not my position, it's just a position. And you've now back tracked so far that you've chosen your values by fiat, or at best, pragmatically (which, by the way, is my starting point). It was fun to watch you shuffle, though. I always suspect that behind every moral absolutist is a moral pragmatist. I wonder how Bob sees this move you've taken.
Interesting. You stipulate that the DoI writers were just taking those things to be self-evident, even if they aren't, but then suggest that we need a ground. Since I offered nature as a ground, and your reply is that those things aren't self-evident in nature, why don't we just take them to be?
“All men are created equal” or “rights” or “inherent dignity”—none of these things are self-evident in nature. Therefore [see above].
I took the implication to be that self-evidency was important, or at least that they are self-evident in Natural Law (or in light of God, or whatever). If that's not the case, then why on earth would it matter whether they're self-evident in nature?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Osama bin Laden Is Dead”
It gets more interesting in that, at least according to reports, the ISI was on site with the U.S. (likely SEAL) team that conducted the operation. So they didn't share intelligence with the Pakistanis, but they brought them along, or at least told them where to show up and when. How did that work?
The way this went down is going to be very interesting, and I agree with Member: this sounds like it happened the way the "War on Terror" should have been happening all along. I suppose when you have a military with a budget larger than the rest of the world's combined, you're tempted to use as much of it as you can when you've got something to use it for.
On ““Ninety-eight Percent of Texas Confederates Never Owned a Slave””
Bob, see Andy's post, but of course I know the history behind the start of the war, and of course, you know the southern myth. So why bother, eh?
"
When one side fires at the other, it seems strange to say that other side started the war.
On “Foote’s Civil War, Volume II: Tragedy and Just Causes”
Blücher, by the way, crazy or not, was a military genius, whose tactical successes in 1806, even when the end result was Prussian defeat, were amazing, particularly given the disadvantages he had. The American Civil War may have produced some impressive generals, but for the most part, American generals can't touch the European greats.
"
If I'm not mistaken, the elephant thing actually happened in 1806, after Prussias defeat, when he was quite physically ill, though apocryphal versions of the story have him saying something to that effect to Wellington, and sometimes add (at least I think this part is apocryphal) that he believed he had been impregnated with the elephant by a French grenadier, but I’m pretty sure whoever it was that impregnated him with an elephant, it happened almost a decade before Waterloo.
That wasn't his only little breakdown, either. At one point, he thought his head had turned to stone, and there's a possibly apocryphal story that he believed for a while that his staff was composed of French agents who were trying to burn his feet, so that when he sat he made sure to lift his feet, and when he stood he stood on one foot, alternating feet frequently (I read jumped from one foot for the other, but that's almost too funny to be believed). Apparently he had bouts of this mental... illness over the last couple decades of his life. To modern ears, it sounds like he may have had some sort of frontal lobe epilepsy or brain swelling or something. That or he was just coocoo for coco puffs.
On “His Master’s Voice”
Where can I find her explanation?
Also, by anti-rationalist, do you mean anti-Rationalist, as in anti-philosophical rationalism, the position that paces the intellect and Reason over the senses and the empirical as a (or perhaps in its extreme form, the) source of knowledge, or do you mean simply anti-reason. If it’s the latter, then see the second sentence in my previous comment. If it’s the former, then eh. Nietzsche was an empiricst, even a naturalist (particularly in his later works), and not an enemy of reason, though he felt it too should be the subject of critique (his major criticism of Kant was that his critique of reason didn’t go far enough: it stopped just when it was on the point of actually accomplishing something). He was, however, certainly an enemy of Rationalism. I’ve always been under the impression that Rand had significant Rationalist tendencies, but wasn’t full-blown Rationalist ala Leibniz. I could be wrong, though.
On “Foote’s Civil War, Volume II: Tragedy and Just Causes”
Glad you didn't answer the question.
"
Ha. I'm not sure Bob would disagree with that, which saddens me in a way. People like Bob who've been so steeped in the southern mythology of that war and its southern actors that they've lost any ability to recognize facts, do sadden me, I suppose because I saw it happen to so many of my friends, and that mythology is so... morally damaging.
On “His Master’s Voice”
Rand may have liked Nietzsche. I see no evidence that Rand understood Nietzsche. Just wanted to throw that out there.
Oh, and it seems strange that Rand, or any Objectivists, would consider Nietzsche, staunch anti-capitalist that he was, an ally in any way.
On “Foote’s Civil War, Volume II: Tragedy and Just Causes”
Riiiiiiight. The south seceding, firing on federal troops, siezing federal land and supplies, etc., had nothing to do with it. It was all Lincoln's fault, because he did what?
"
Add Jefferson Davis in there, of course. And I'd say that Lee and Davis were much greater traitors than Arnold, since, you know, they actually committed treason that resulted in 600,000 dead Americans.
"
No, not universally. Lee was particularly harsh with his slaves. What's more, much of what we know of Lee personally is a post-war myth (e.g., he was distinctly anti-abolition, pro-secession, etc., despite more than a century of claims that he didn't want Virginia to secede and was at least sympathetic to the anti-slavery cause, but simply couldn't abandon Virginia). His personal papers, which only became available relatively recently, paint a quite different picture from the "universally" recognized one of the last century and a half.
"
Well, they did make allies with Ukranians, at the local level. I don't know much about the Polish occupation outside of the major cities.
"
Grant was a better strategist than any general in the South. Lee may have been a brilliant tactician, though Grant was probably his match, but Lee couldn't hold a candle to Grant strategically. This is why the South lost Gettysburg, for example, though the tactical mistakes, such as letting the Union troops take the high ground, were pretty glaring on the Confederate side as well. Longstreet was a great tactician, as was Forrest. I think the only high ranking Confederate general who had both strategic and tactical abilities that matched Grant's and Sherman's was Jackson (I can guarantee you that Jackson would have taken Cemetary Hill without hesitation; without Jackson, Lee looked near ordinary).
Plus, the South had Hood, who pretty much cancels out the rest ;).
Also, aside from Hitler's military ineptitude, there's nothing ideological about the defeat of the Nazis. They lost because they were fighting on two fronts against nations with more resources, both natural and human, and their philosophy of war production was outdated. It's nice to have the best tools -- the best machine gun, the best tank, the best artillery, the best assault rifle -- but you have to be able to produce enough of them, and be able to repair them easily and quickly, for them to be effective, even when you have the best trained troops.
One wonders, if it were an ideological failure that caused them to lose the war, why they did so strikingly well early on. And lest you suggest that this was before the U.S. entered the war, recall that for much of the time that the U.S. was in the war, 70-80% of the German army was thousands of miles to the East of any American troops, and the Germans never lost an even fight to the Americans. They lost that war because they ran out of men, and gas, and tanks, and planes, and because they made several strategic blunders (particularly in the East) that were more costly than the strategic blunders of the Allies (e.g., Market Garden), because they had a significantly smaller margin for error.
On “Muslims and PR: A response to comments”
Hahahahaha... OK, sorry Tom, I just find people this predictable to be amusing. Congrats, BSK, you've brought Tom to his "I win!" moment.
Seriously though, Tom, that you see these things so clearly us-against-them situations (and often, in your case, us against the world) says a whole hell of a lot. Not quite so much as the fact that you think well-to-do white Christian males are the victims in our our political environment, but still a whole hell of a lot.
On “Are Liberals Nihilistically Tolerant?”
Because a very small number of communists have voted Democrat at some point in history, "commie-dem" isn't off base? By that reasoning, I'm certain that "fascist-repub" and even "nazi-repub" aren't off base. And I say this as someone who wishes there were real socialists among the Democrats.
On “The Czar of Benton Harbor”
Yay! Now if only the conservatives, and not just libertarians like Jason, would read this. It might clear up some misconceptions.
On “Are Liberals Nihilistically Tolerant?”
Haha... at some point, this really just looks like post hoc rationalization. Yeah, the Republicans are increasing the deficit, but spending cuts, therefore smaller government, and the Republicans are the ones who really care about deficits! And while Republicans have been very clear about not raising taxes, even on the rich (when 80% of the country wants the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to end, and there's no fiscal reason to keep them), secretly they're the ones who will raise taxes, because, you know, nth dimensional chess and all that.
I wish I could take any of this seriously, but it really just looks like... well, it doesn't look like anything serious.
"
But in the vast group that comprises the entire party rank and file I’ve no doubt one can find some and if you include historically it’s a near certainty.
That's wonderful. So you can't think of any Democrats who are or were communists, but you're certain that in the past and how the Democratic party, particularly in its left wing, contained many a communist. Got ya.
"
Can you name some communists in the Democratic party? I'll settle for one, though two or three would be best. And Bernie Sanders, who's not a communist, and not a Democrat, won't do.
On “Weekend Jukebox and Open Thread”
Tom, yeah, that reminds me of the old Positive Liberty days. Backed yourself into a corner, decide that instead of trying to get out, you'll just tell the world you've won, and leave. If this weren't the case you could, for example, point to one place where I've misunderstood you. Since I've kept to your actual words, that won't be an easy task.
And by the way, I didn't say anything to imply you're endorsing fideism. You're doing nothing of the sort, as you're not even pretending faith, just choice. You'd make a good Sartrean. But it's true, I was participating in bad faith. I just wanted to get you to the "I win" moment, because it's amusing. I was a bit bored today.
If you wanted a real discussion, from me or from pretty much anyone here (you'll notice you don't get them from anyone but Ivolgin and Voegelin), you'd have to start arguing rather than throwing up flares.
"
I didn't take the football away. I let you take it away from yourself. When you start from the position that your view is better because it's firmly grounded in metaphysical certainty, and end up at the view that, eh, I just chose to go with this metaphysics because it works out better than other things we've tried, it's not I who's taken anything away from you or your position. You did it all yourself. Well done.
"
Tom, it's not my position, it's just a position. And you've now back tracked so far that you've chosen your values by fiat, or at best, pragmatically (which, by the way, is my starting point). It was fun to watch you shuffle, though. I always suspect that behind every moral absolutist is a moral pragmatist. I wonder how Bob sees this move you've taken.
"
Interesting. You stipulate that the DoI writers were just taking those things to be self-evident, even if they aren't, but then suggest that we need a ground. Since I offered nature as a ground, and your reply is that those things aren't self-evident in nature, why don't we just take them to be?
"
Tom, you wrote:
“All men are created equal” or “rights” or “inherent dignity”—none of these things are self-evident in nature. Therefore [see above].
I took the implication to be that self-evidency was important, or at least that they are self-evident in Natural Law (or in light of God, or whatever). If that's not the case, then why on earth would it matter whether they're self-evident in nature?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.