OK, my little dumplings. It seems that Hezbollah has 'won' the PR of this conflict. All of my intrepid readers were correct. Econo-Girl was in error, especially since Iran is kicking in more to rebuild Lebanon than the U.S. is. On a side note, couldn't we contribute engineers and other technical folk? That would be valuable, cheaper and good at mending relations.
So what happens now? Lebanon is not being strengthened to be self-governing. There will be a safe patch between Israel and Lebanon, at least temporarily. International troops will be there to guard the borders.
Readers may have lost faith in Econo-Girl's predictions on this score, but she will hold forth once again. There will be arab-based resistance to Iran/Hezbollah influence in the region.
Underneath this conflict is a series of civil wars that the entire region is distracting itself from. If peace would break out between groups, war would break out within them.
8.18.2006
8.15.2006
Hezbollah
So what is it? A victory for Israel or Hezbollah? From the beginning the talking heads have been saying that if Hezbollah does nothing but survive, it will be a victory for them. They clucked on about how Hezbollah framed the conflict in those terms.
Econo-Girl has only this to ask:
Doesn't the media have complicity in framing the conflict that way? Isn't it disingenuous to say, over and over, that Hezbollah has only to survive to win when you are part of what is making that true?
And what is the lifespan of spin, anyway? How long are people going to think within the narrow confines of what is outlined for them? Two years? How long did that crap about Saddam Hussein being involved in Sept. 11 last? You can't hide behind the green curtain forever.
Econo-Girl posits that it was a defeat for both sides. After all, they had to compromise. Israel is very disappointed in its own performance and failed to wipe out Hezbollah completely. Hezbollah wasn't going to win in the end and they knew it, so they cut their losses and cease-fired now. What Hezbollah got was their own existence, the purpose of which was negated when Israel withdrew from Lebanon. But this entire conflict has highlighted to everyone the problems of a government not in control of its own territory. So the powerful role of Hezbollah will not be permitted in the future because of the MidEast war it almost sparked.
It probably was more of a defeat for Israel, but the conflict isn't really over yet. The bullets have just stopped flying, that's all. Let's wait and see.
Econo-Girl has only this to ask:
Doesn't the media have complicity in framing the conflict that way? Isn't it disingenuous to say, over and over, that Hezbollah has only to survive to win when you are part of what is making that true?
And what is the lifespan of spin, anyway? How long are people going to think within the narrow confines of what is outlined for them? Two years? How long did that crap about Saddam Hussein being involved in Sept. 11 last? You can't hide behind the green curtain forever.
Econo-Girl posits that it was a defeat for both sides. After all, they had to compromise. Israel is very disappointed in its own performance and failed to wipe out Hezbollah completely. Hezbollah wasn't going to win in the end and they knew it, so they cut their losses and cease-fired now. What Hezbollah got was their own existence, the purpose of which was negated when Israel withdrew from Lebanon. But this entire conflict has highlighted to everyone the problems of a government not in control of its own territory. So the powerful role of Hezbollah will not be permitted in the future because of the MidEast war it almost sparked.
It probably was more of a defeat for Israel, but the conflict isn't really over yet. The bullets have just stopped flying, that's all. Let's wait and see.
8.13.2006
Why I Lost Faith in Hillary Clinton
Econo-Girl has never spoken these words aloud:
I don't trust Hillary Clinton.
But now the truth is out. Her support of the war in Iraq lacked political courage. In fact, Econo-Girl would like to know where HC has ever displayed political courage. Where? Where has she spit in the pollsters' eyes and said "Damn it, it's the right thing to do!"
Even in 2001, after the attacks, it was clear that Iraq was not connected to the 9-11 attacks. But none of them had the courage to say so. And so now our nation is mired in Iraq and have a good chance of leaving the place in worse shape than how we found it.
Now that Lieberman lost the primary, it is easy to jump on the bandwagon against the war. Where was HC when it was a difficult and risky thing to do?
I don't trust Hillary Clinton.
But now the truth is out. Her support of the war in Iraq lacked political courage. In fact, Econo-Girl would like to know where HC has ever displayed political courage. Where? Where has she spit in the pollsters' eyes and said "Damn it, it's the right thing to do!"
Even in 2001, after the attacks, it was clear that Iraq was not connected to the 9-11 attacks. But none of them had the courage to say so. And so now our nation is mired in Iraq and have a good chance of leaving the place in worse shape than how we found it.
Now that Lieberman lost the primary, it is easy to jump on the bandwagon against the war. Where was HC when it was a difficult and risky thing to do?
8.09.2006
The Death of "Shock and Awe"
Econo-Girl has decided to use this forum to continue the same kind of commentary she indulged in while on Intelink.
"Shock and Awe" is dead. The current Israeli military campaign has demonstrated that the fantasy of air power to control territory is not effective, just as the U.S. military operations in Iraq did. There is no long-distance war without casualties. The armchair ruminations of our Secretary of Defense have been disproved a second time, with a loss of momentum on the side of the Israelis.
Econo-Girl has great faith in Israeli military power and strategy. With the start of a ground campaign, Hezbollah will have a new war to fight and win. It won't be easy.
Now, before all that hate mail from military types rolls in, I have no classified knowledge of any of this. My sources are the PBS Newshour and CNN.
"Shock and Awe" is dead. The current Israeli military campaign has demonstrated that the fantasy of air power to control territory is not effective, just as the U.S. military operations in Iraq did. There is no long-distance war without casualties. The armchair ruminations of our Secretary of Defense have been disproved a second time, with a loss of momentum on the side of the Israelis.
Econo-Girl has great faith in Israeli military power and strategy. With the start of a ground campaign, Hezbollah will have a new war to fight and win. It won't be easy.
Now, before all that hate mail from military types rolls in, I have no classified knowledge of any of this. My sources are the PBS Newshour and CNN.
8.06.2006
Merely Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
From Amnesty International's web page:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Memorandum to the US Government on the report of the UN Committee Against Torture and the question of closing Guantánamo
'On 2 December 2002, Secretary Rumsfeld approved, "as a matter of policy", a number of techniques for use in interrogating detainees at Guantánamo, at the discretion of the Commander of US Southern Command. The techniques included stress positions, sensory deprivation, isolation, the use of 20-hour interrogations, hooding during transportation and interrogation, stripping, forcible shaving, and "using detainees individual phobias (such as fear of dogs) to induce stress". '
We are discussing the definition of torture on this blog, but please remember that when referring to torture, this Administration is not including the tactics described above. That is why definitions are so important.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Memorandum to the US Government on the report of the UN Committee Against Torture and the question of closing Guantánamo
'On 2 December 2002, Secretary Rumsfeld approved, "as a matter of policy", a number of techniques for use in interrogating detainees at Guantánamo, at the discretion of the Commander of US Southern Command. The techniques included stress positions, sensory deprivation, isolation, the use of 20-hour interrogations, hooding during transportation and interrogation, stripping, forcible shaving, and "using detainees individual phobias (such as fear of dogs) to induce stress". '
We are discussing the definition of torture on this blog, but please remember that when referring to torture, this Administration is not including the tactics described above. That is why definitions are so important.
8.05.2006
Towards a Working Definition of Torture
FFG, a regular commenter, has suggested as a working definition of torture:
Anything that causes permanent physical or psychological damage.
It strikes Econo-Girl that that definition is a bit loose. After all, it applies to junior high gym class as well as waterboarding. To be honest, Econo-Girl has stayed away from defining torture because it's gross to think about. And I don't want a discussion here about pulling fingernails.
How about adding: Or leading a subject to believe that serious bodily injury will take place if they don't cooperate.
Of course, that would fall under the category of permanent psychological damage.
Or threatening the physical safety of family members or loved ones.
Same comment as above. Let's hear what you guys think. Econo-Girl seeks to host a dialog.
Anything that causes permanent physical or psychological damage.
It strikes Econo-Girl that that definition is a bit loose. After all, it applies to junior high gym class as well as waterboarding. To be honest, Econo-Girl has stayed away from defining torture because it's gross to think about. And I don't want a discussion here about pulling fingernails.
How about adding: Or leading a subject to believe that serious bodily injury will take place if they don't cooperate.
Of course, that would fall under the category of permanent psychological damage.
Or threatening the physical safety of family members or loved ones.
Same comment as above. Let's hear what you guys think. Econo-Girl seeks to host a dialog.
8.03.2006
Message to All Army Interrogators
Hey guys, I read the latest Esquire magazine where an Army interrogator talked about interrogation techniques they used. It was shocking, but not entirely surprising. What Econo-Girl found surprising was that the interrogators were being lied to by military attorneys.
The Army interrogators were told that the Geneva Conventions didn't apply to the people they were questioning. Why? Because the Attorney General said so. Now of course, no other U.S. Attorney General has ever held that opinion and no court has ever agreed with him, but never mind. The non-attorney interrogators were told that if anyone went to prison for what they were doing, it would be the lawyers telling them it was OK.
Come, now. You're sober, right? How could you possibly believe that? When has a pencil-necked attorney ever stuck his head out?
Believe Econo-Girl when she tells you that if you did it, you will be nailed for it. Wasn't Ollie North? Except you won't be getting a radio show out of the deal. After all, you'll be a torturer. Who would want to get behind that?
A little escape to the beach has done a lot to clarify things for Econo-Girl. Most of the post that started this whole mess was about outlining the law to non-attorneys who might be put in compromising legal positions. I saw it as a way of empowering them to say 'no' to prison for themselves. In retrospect, that's what got me fired. Not the sentence fragment that everyone is so hysterical about. I was going to expose the legal lie.
The Army interrogators were told that the Geneva Conventions didn't apply to the people they were questioning. Why? Because the Attorney General said so. Now of course, no other U.S. Attorney General has ever held that opinion and no court has ever agreed with him, but never mind. The non-attorney interrogators were told that if anyone went to prison for what they were doing, it would be the lawyers telling them it was OK.
Come, now. You're sober, right? How could you possibly believe that? When has a pencil-necked attorney ever stuck his head out?
Believe Econo-Girl when she tells you that if you did it, you will be nailed for it. Wasn't Ollie North? Except you won't be getting a radio show out of the deal. After all, you'll be a torturer. Who would want to get behind that?
A little escape to the beach has done a lot to clarify things for Econo-Girl. Most of the post that started this whole mess was about outlining the law to non-attorneys who might be put in compromising legal positions. I saw it as a way of empowering them to say 'no' to prison for themselves. In retrospect, that's what got me fired. Not the sentence fragment that everyone is so hysterical about. I was going to expose the legal lie.
7.29.2006
We All Lose Our Charms in the End
Econo-Girl got a Management degree years, even decades, ago. There she was exposed to the MAX MIN game theory. The thought is to make the worst that can happen as painless as possible.
Econo-Girl frequently thinks of this theory in relation to a functioning democracy. Since we all lose our charms in the end, you will eventually lose power by losing an election or political battle. When that happens, your actions will come to haunt you rather viciously.
With that in mind, a prudent pol will temper him/herself for a potential future downfall. Not in all cases, but for the most part. And that is part of what makes democracy great.
Econo-Girl is posting from sunny Naples, Florida today. Can't wait for a dip in the warm ocean.
Econo-Girl frequently thinks of this theory in relation to a functioning democracy. Since we all lose our charms in the end, you will eventually lose power by losing an election or political battle. When that happens, your actions will come to haunt you rather viciously.
With that in mind, a prudent pol will temper him/herself for a potential future downfall. Not in all cases, but for the most part. And that is part of what makes democracy great.
Econo-Girl is posting from sunny Naples, Florida today. Can't wait for a dip in the warm ocean.
7.27.2006
We Must Discuss It For Torture To Stop
It's true. Many readers have expressed the opinion that the very discussion of the effectiveness of torture should not be engaged in. Econo-Girl disagrees. A lot of the underpinning of support for this practice is based on the belief that it is effective. So its effectiveness must be examined dispassionately. From there, the dialog can go to morals and beliefs.
Is Listening to Britney Spears Torture?
BTW - Econo-Girl loves Britney Spears, so this is not slam on you, girl. And a great web site you got.
Let's take a look at one definition:
torture
n 1: extreme mental distress [syn: anguish, torment] 2: unbearable physical pain [syn: torment] 3: intense feelings of suffering; acute mental or physical pain; "an agony of doubt"; "the torments of the damned" [syn: agony, torment] 4: the act of distorting something so it seems to mean something it was not intended to mean [syn: distortion, overrefinement, straining, twisting] 5: the act of torturing someone; "it required unnatural torturing to extract a confession" [syn: torturing] v 1: torment emotionally or mentally [syn: torment, excruciate, rack] 2: subject to torture; "The sinners will be tormented in Hell, according to the Bible" [syn: excruciate, torment]
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
Of course the disagreement will be in what constitutes extreme mental distress, unbearable physical pain, or intense feelings of suffering. We are all acculturated in our musical tastes such that exposure to something completely different at loud volume would be hard to bear. Or maybe the kids watching the prisoners just wanted to listen to Britney Spears, which is probably more likely.
A comment by IC Guy asked if a person would be more likely to tell the truth under threat of extreme physical pain, and the answer is probably 'yes.' But it is also just as likely they will tell you what you want to hear, judging from the reactions to their previous answers.
In this particular discussion thread, we are ignoring the role of morals.
Let's take a look at one definition:
torture
n 1: extreme mental distress [syn: anguish, torment] 2: unbearable physical pain [syn: torment] 3: intense feelings of suffering; acute mental or physical pain; "an agony of doubt"; "the torments of the damned" [syn: agony, torment] 4: the act of distorting something so it seems to mean something it was not intended to mean [syn: distortion, overrefinement, straining, twisting] 5: the act of torturing someone; "it required unnatural torturing to extract a confession" [syn: torturing] v 1: torment emotionally or mentally [syn: torment, excruciate, rack] 2: subject to torture; "The sinners will be tormented in Hell, according to the Bible" [syn: excruciate, torment]
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
Of course the disagreement will be in what constitutes extreme mental distress, unbearable physical pain, or intense feelings of suffering. We are all acculturated in our musical tastes such that exposure to something completely different at loud volume would be hard to bear. Or maybe the kids watching the prisoners just wanted to listen to Britney Spears, which is probably more likely.
A comment by IC Guy asked if a person would be more likely to tell the truth under threat of extreme physical pain, and the answer is probably 'yes.' But it is also just as likely they will tell you what you want to hear, judging from the reactions to their previous answers.
In this particular discussion thread, we are ignoring the role of morals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)