Sunday, August 12, 2007

Cheney in 1994 Interview: "Invasion of Iraq would lead to a quagmire."

In a 1994 interview, "Big Time" Dick explains why the US was wise not to invade and occupy Iraq during the Gulf War. I've never seen the man speak the truth before. It's a little scary...

7 comments:

Donald Douglas said...

Maybe his thinking on Iraq had changed by 2002?

Listen, thanks for the suggestion to start using tags. I didn't like the way the tags were set up in the dashboard, but I think I'll get used to it. And if they help commenters find other posts, all the better.

You make a good point about the Newark killings, regarding the race of the victims, etc. My point is only to suggest that the victims were traditional urban blacks, who ended up being victims of a traditional urban crime. You avoided the point about the dominate racial demographic in Newark - and that's key! When liberals say it's really socioeconomic conditions that explain the violence, etc., it's usually a display of either ignorance or avoidance of black cultural pathologies. It's a touchy subject, in any case.

I've got a new post up on the issues, which you might have better luck dissecting! And I'm starting in with the tags as well!

Burkean Reflections

repsac3 said...

"Maybe his thinking on Iraq had changed by 2002?"

I hope that is the case, & he wasn't lying, either then or now...

I still think his answer then made more sense, and I wish he stuck with it.

"When liberals say it's really socioeconomic conditions that explain the violence, etc., it's usually a display of either ignorance or avoidance of black cultural pathologies."

That is the question I was trying to get to... I don't claim to be any kinda expert, but I'd like to think there are no pathologies unique to black culture. I'll be most interested to read more (& I shall try to reserve judgment as best I can...)

Quite welcome on the tag suggestion... I tend to publish, then go back & tag... (I don't like the way it works in dashboard, either...)

Dora said...

"When liberals say it's really socioeconomic conditions that explain the violence, etc., it's usually a display of either ignorance or avoidance of black cultural pathologies."

You should invite Farmer John over here, he actually believes that black people are naturally less intelligent than white people.

As for "black cultural pathologies," we've moved to a new kind of racism: it's the culture, not the genes. It's better, because culture is not genetically inscribed and can be changed much more quickly than genes, but it's still racism, because it equates a culture with a race.

It's not "black" culture that is the problem, because the exact same kind of culture is a problem in France and Germany among Arab and Middle Eastern youth. It's ghetto cluture,a nd ghetto culture, (a culture of a people who is (1) somehow foreign/imported, and (2) disenfranchised or exploited for a few generations, and now on difficult path out of that social station) is more or less the same around the world: violent, flashy, greedy, sexually explicit, and somewhat fearful of life outside of its own physical and social borders. The participants in that culture are always being told that their whole culture is a "problem" that needs to be solved, which immediately puts them on the defensive, and entranches them more.

repsac3 said...

Dora, for my money you've got this "kinder, gentler racism" thing (it's in the culture, not the genes)exactly right...

Some social ills do afflict minority communities in greater percentages than in the majority community. Poverty, homelessness, single parent families, drop out rates, criminality, ... I don't believe that because these ills are more present among certain races, being of that race causes these things, either through nature or nurture.

I subscribe to the theory that each one of these conditions help the others thrive, creating a symbiotic clusterfuck of problems that need to be treated as a whole. Minorities have the added problem of a little racism tossed in, but otherwise anyone can get sucked in.

But, Donald says that black politics is an area he specializes in as a college professor, so I'm willing to hear him out and try to understand his theories about why things are as they are, and what to do about it.

While I haven't read enough of his blog & commentary to judge him on this topic, he seems to be more or less a reasonable Con, in general. He's not a name-calling bomb thrower, but he does seem to enjoy some of those who are, judging by some of the bloggers he reads & quotes in his entries... ...and his readers run the gambit as well, from nutcases to reasonable, intelligent conservatives...

repsac3 said...

Oh, as far as Farmer...

I have zero interest in dealing with that whole crowd. There's wrong, and then there's "just no point" nutty. True believers can be exposed, but never changed.

May the God that they believe in bless 'em, and the God that I believe in show them the light.

Dora said...

Yes, I would like to hear more from Donald, if those are his qualifications.

As for Farmer John & Co., Lincoln said something like, you can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all the time.

Farmer John & Co = the "some of the people all the time" part.

Dora said...

I read my post again... "entranches"

Sigh, derivatives law is taking over my whole life...