October 7, 2008

Tuesday 081007

Rest Day


Enlarge image

"Teaching Kids the Squat" by CrossFit Kids, CrossFit Journal Preview - video [wmv] [mov]

Tune in tonight at 5pm Pacific for a special edition of CrossFit Radio online with host Neil Anderson and guests Greg Glassman, Mark Rippetoe, Lon Kilgore, Robb Wolf, and Andy Stumpf.

"The War Won't End In Afghanistan" by Michael J. Totten - Commentary

Post thoughts to comments.

Posted by lauren at October 7, 2008 8:43 AM

I'm going to try that with some of our adults!

Comment #1 - Posted by: Jason Ackerman - Albany CrossFit at October 6, 2008 7:54 PM

Question for anyone. For double unders is a leather jump rope good enough or should I get a speed rope, also what length for someone 5'11?


Comment #2 - Posted by: Madmardy at October 6, 2008 8:01 PM

Makes going back to Afghanistan seem a little pointless.

OK, that's my pessismistic, cynical side. From what I've read, I have to agree with Totten. Afghanistan is but one battleground in the campaign on terror. Hopefully it will not set the template for how the campaign will be fought, and we can focus on the moral plane, the PR plane and the criminal/law enforcement plane with military force only being brought in when the fight gets too hot for the police.
How to move the battle to those planes, and away from general military conflict is the next question. Then the problem of gathering enough political will to effectively fight the campaign will raise its head. Chances are this will turn into another cold war, just with more hotspots, both conventional and terroist.
On the bright side the job market for soldiers will stay strong:> (There goes that cynicism again.)

Comment #3 - Posted by: KCN at October 6, 2008 8:09 PM

We must take it to them or else they will bring it to us.

Comment #4 - Posted by: tim p_az at October 6, 2008 8:21 PM

Great to find out little tricks like that to teach people compound movements. It's officially in my trainer toolbox.

Comment #5 - Posted by: Mini T at October 6, 2008 8:22 PM

Mr michael J Totten is far from wrong on many of his points. Such as the fact that an attack can be planned anywhere on anything. I know this first hand, being on a train in Hamberg Germany two years ago where there was a bomb planted on it by an Al Qaeda supporter. But the war is most evident in Afghanistan and its here it has to start. In my view it is going to get worse before it gets better. We all know the American armed forces are up to the job, the real question is, will the next government be ?

Comment #6 - Posted by: Ronan at October 6, 2008 8:28 PM

cute shorts!

Comment #7 - Posted by: eva t. at October 6, 2008 8:51 PM

Every war the USA has engaged in has taken time, many spanding years and decades. Whether you believe we should have been in each war or not is irrevelant. The fact is our country as it stands now has no stomach for war at any cost or for any reason. Those wars, unlike this one, were mostly against a country (or countries) and people (or their leaders) resolute in their belief, but at the same time mostly restrained by geographical boundary. This war, unlike those, are not. This war is not against a nation or people, it is against a fundamental belief shared by a common people (fundamentalist religion) reveling in an inate hatred of everything our country and people stand for. This battle will not end. Those who call for a "deadline" are both niave and uninformed. We will fight this war globaly. This includes at home. The liberal sect of our society has attempted to geographically define the boundaries of this war in an effort to further their agenda. Anti-war (Iraq), anti-patriot act, anti-conservatism, etc. Their politicians travel to Europe to solicit the support of those people (Germany) while playing on the weakness of our own people who are weak and embarassed of our global strengths and standing. Anti-US statements such as being ashamed to be an American and "For the first time in my adult life I feel proud to be an American because I see hope" are abundant. Wake up. We are a nation of leaders. We take up the fight where others fail. It is a human behaviour to despise those stronger and with more power (look at the anti-Crossfit crap we see). Have no shame in this, believe in the good fight. We've worked harder, smarter, and longer. We ARE deserving and ARE good. God bless our soldiers, God guide our leaders, and God damn those who seak to oppose our cause. If we choose as a people to not take up this task (world leader and defender), so be it. We should then become a country of isolationists, quit pouring billions and trillions of dollars over seas to foreign countries, and begin taking care of our own. We've become a nation of weak, liberal, whiney, do-nothing fat asses. It makes me want to puke more than the WOD yesterday did and quite frankly, this election and the BS that has been vomited forth by both sides of the ticket has me considering finding like-minded people and buying an island somewhere where it's warmer and starting our own democratic country. Make no mistake, I love this country, but if this crap continues exponentially as I've seen it proliferate in my 41 years of blessed United States citizenship, I'm thinking I won't want to be here (little lone my children and grandchildren) in another 41 years. I welcome all replies, and, respect the right of each of us to voice our own opinion. That right I fight for, and, if everyone reading this felt the same, we wouldn't be in the same shit pot we find our selves in now. Hugs and kisses.

Comment #8 - Posted by: patriot at October 6, 2008 9:04 PM

Comment #7 I agree that the American armed forces are up to the job. One possibility for the next administration has some guts and the other would probably befriend our enemies... Oh, wait, he already has; he kinda kicked off his political career in the living room of a known terrorist.

Comment #9 - Posted by: Lars at October 6, 2008 9:04 PM

The writer conveniently ignores that the US helped create the power of Bin Laden and the general anti-American mindset.

Simply look back at the 50s when we overthrew Mossadeq in Iran and reinstated the Shah, a tyrannical dictator, into power. Needless to say, the Iranians didn’t like that and finally revolted in the late 70s, taking over the US embassy and then releasing hostages a few years later. Next, we support Saddam in invading Iran, giving him chemical weapons which he used on the Iranians and the Kurds.

Later, Saddam tells US ambassador to Iraq, April Gillespie (sp?) that Kuwait is slant drilling oil from Iraq and that they will use military force to stop it. The US offers no resistance until after the invasion begins.

We also helped create Bin Laden by supporting the Taliban against Russia. Where do you think many of the RPGs they use against us came from? In reading Bin Laden’s fatwas, there are 3 main reasons cited for the 9/11 attacks.
1. Occupation of the Holy Land (Arabian Peninsula) - US had over 7,000 troops there at the time.
2. Continued bombing and sanctions of Iraq for 10 years, dropping over 1000 bombs in that time.
3. Continued support of Israeli oppression of Palestine.

The terrorist ideology will continue to thrive until our foreign entanglements come to an end. How would we feel if China invaded Mexico, or enforced a no-fly zone over Canada, or had battleships in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be furious. Yet, somehow we are supposed to accept that our current empire around the world should be viewed as just and necessary.

Comment #10 - Posted by: Tom Jefferson at October 6, 2008 9:16 PM

> They're not attacking buddhists, hindus, or anyone else.

The Taliban blew up those big Buddhist statues (Buddhas of Bamyan) in Afghanistan a while back. Ask the Hindus and Muslims in India what they think of each other and what the body count is on each side.

Perennial war is the answer to all of our problems.

Comment #11 - Posted by: TomC at October 6, 2008 9:19 PM

I love the "earn your scabs" t-shirt, that's awesome. Gotta get one for both of my little Crossfitters.

Ok, so I'm just recovering after a nasty 3 day bout with this head cold thing that's going around and I'm gonna try a little active recovery in the morning. It might be counter productive, but I simply cannot stand being sedentary for 4 straight days...it's just not natural.

Comment #12 - Posted by: Playoff Beard at October 6, 2008 9:21 PM

wow. I'm disappointed. If I wanted to read a political article, I would've gone to another website for that.

Comment #13 - Posted by: Carleigh at October 6, 2008 9:38 PM

I can tell this one is going to be heated. I need to head to bed and will comment more tomorrow but...

Steve comment #4
Really. Are you really trying to make the point that the USA somehow deserves to be attacked? That we have somehow hearned 9/11 and the rest of the Jihad?
The USA is not the only ones they are attacking. Wake up.
The Juhadist/extremests are declaring war on anyone who doesn't agree with them.
I can't believe anyone can buy in to this liberal BS of "America is getting what it desrves".
I guess I'll go to bed before I resort to name-calling.

Comment #14 - Posted by: CW Limbaugh at October 6, 2008 9:44 PM

13 comments in and already it's America's fault. Twice. That may be a new record.

Steve, you're wrong (as someone pointed out) in every comment. I suspect you're simply a troll because no one could reasonably state something as stupid as this: "Comment #7 "We all know the American armed forces are up to the job,"

Strongly disagree with you on that one. I see nothing to support that claim."

You should amend that statement to read "I see nothing." That would be much more accurate.

Tom Jefferson (haha, if you're real name):
This is my favorite (inane) statement because it so sums up the leftist mindset -
"The terrorist ideology will continue to thrive until our foreign entanglements come to an end."

So, according to you, when we cease foreign entanglements, the terrorists will simply leave us alone and go home? No more Americans will ever be killed by terrorists? You do realize how facially idiotic that statement is, right?

From the very inception of the American experiment, in say, oh, 1801-04 (when we were Constitutionally in our teens), would you say we had few, if any, foreign entanglements? If you would agree, can you please explain why the Barbary Pirates were using terrorist tactics on the high-seas (piracy) against us? According to you, that didn't/shouldn't/wouldn't have happened.

By the way, Tom, in a great bit of irony, Thomas Jefferson was overwhelmingly in favor of using force rather than negotiating with terrorists. You might weant to read some history and get out and see the world a bit. Or give back the tuition.

I'm cranky today, but this is mostly a pet peeve with people who have never faced terrorists up close and personal. They kill Canadians, Brits, other Afghans, Saudis, Pakistanis, Jews, Hindus, and anyone else they can for effect or because they don't like them. Or because someone told them that God/Allah/the Hamburgler said so. Take your pick. They aren't rational in any sense of that word and they couldn't discuss the beginnings of any foreign policy position the US has taken. And, as a logical matter, the position leftists take on this is utterly, totally, devoid of reason because it's underlying principle is "might makes right".

If we should not have ANY foreign entanglements because terrorists will stop attacking us, that logically means that the terrorists are right because of their use of force. In other words, you don't even debate the merits of any particular foreign policy position, the terrorists are allowed to use violence to disagree and argue and we chould capitulate. By that logic then, force is the only legitimate deciding factor in arguing an issue. Which therefore means that we should enforce our will by massive, overwhelming use of violence and silence opposition. How logically brilliant leftists are.

Comment #15 - Posted by: Dale_Saran at October 6, 2008 9:59 PM

Does anyone know exactly how to bend pvc pipe to make homemade rings? I've heard the oven then bend and put webbing inside. Any help would be great. Don't want to over cook the pvc! Russ rgw73@yahoo.com

Comment #16 - Posted by: RussEscondido at October 6, 2008 10:25 PM


I don't think the Barbary Coast pirates counts as terrorism...piracy is more a form of theft than terrorism

While we obviously shouldn't just give in to terrorists, Arab Muslims do have some legitimate complaints. Israel is still doing almost nothing to solve the Palestinian problem, and even though the USA is in a position to nudge Israel, of course our Jewish lobby is too strong...Also randomly picking a fight w/ Saddam or the upcoming one against Ahmadinejad over alleged WMD's, while we refuse to dispose of ours, is a great way to rack up the enemies

Also, calling terrorists insane is just wrong...America has consistantly used terrorism to get its way, from tarring and feathering in the American Revolution to the atomic bombs in Japan...terrorism's just a way to fight when you can't win through conventional means

Comment #17 - Posted by: Sam F at October 6, 2008 10:36 PM

I think Americans blaming America for its terrorist enemies is like Jews blaming themselves for the Nazi Holocaust

Leftist liberal in America have a weird form of self hatred

I am a Canadian who think America is one of the greatest nations in the history of civilzations

Comparing Irag and Iran having WMD's to America with WMD's is idiotic and uninformed

It's like saying Hitler with an army is no different to Winston Churchill with an army

Comment #18 - Posted by: nolan Clark at October 6, 2008 10:54 PM

I just got back from a screening of Body of Lies the new Riddly Scott film about hunting Islamic terrorists. I thought it was good but it felt a little long. I would be interested in opinions from those whom have been there.

More on topic of article later.

Comment #19 - Posted by: erik lilliedahl at October 6, 2008 10:55 PM

Dang, an unusually large number of drooling idiots on the site today. Kinda weird. Sleep tight, America haters, sleep tight.

Comment #20 - Posted by: Pleepleeus at October 6, 2008 11:15 PM

Dear Coach Glassman and Crossfit community,

Please watch this movie:


You may find it informs our discussion about war and the threats to our quality of life that we now face. Its called "Zeitgeist: Addendum" and is freely available on Google Video. Thank you.

Comment #21 - Posted by: Genghispan at October 6, 2008 11:23 PM

oh no here come the conspiracy videos, let me guess....Bush planned 9/11?....

Comment #22 - Posted by: nolan Clark at October 6, 2008 11:29 PM

#16 Dale_Saran

Left and right, blue and red, are false, almost comical illusions which keep people ignorant and polarized. Can you explain to me the correlation between abortion and fiscal policy? Or foreign policy and gay marriage? Why would particular stances on those issues be lumped together on one or the other side of the political "spectrum"? For someone as intelligent and freethinking as Coach Glassman to fall into the narrow, spoon-fed view which causes people to use terms like "lefties" amazes me. This self-perpetuating dichotomy keeps the masses divided into bickering, manageable "tribes", blinding us to the much more important conflict of control vs freedom.

The system of indentured servitude to the Federal Reserve we all find ourselves in is an astronomically larger threat to our overall quality of life than terrorism. Its time to wake up.

Comment #23 - Posted by: Genghis at October 6, 2008 11:43 PM


You don't think it's hypocritical of us to go to war w/ a nation because they have WMD's when we have a huge stockpile ourselves? And it's not like we haven't used them...Who are we to decide who should be allowed to have them and who shouldn't?

Comment #24 - Posted by: Sam F at October 6, 2008 11:44 PM

The beginnings of militant jihadism has nothing to do with US foreign politics. The 3 points that Tom Jefferson makes and attributes to Bin Laden are just ridiculous. 1) if having troops in a foreign country that you're allies with is grounds for war then Germany, Turkey, Italy, Britain, Japan, etc etc etc all deserve to start attacking us. 2) We enforced a no-fly zone over Iraq to stop Hussein's aggression against ethnic minorities. We dropped bombs on anti-aircraft systems that tried to shoot our planes down. 3) Our support of Israel is a cold-war policy of propping up democracies around the world just as the SU did with communist ones. We're still allies with Israel but we're also committed to a peace process (bush hosted one at Annapolis last year with all parties in agreement that the purpose was to create a seperate palestinian state). I find it ridiculous that because Bin Laden offers a couple reasons on why he chooses to sponsor terrorism, we suddenly give him sympathy.

"Today’s terrorist movement started in 1928 with the founding of Ikhwan al-Muslimun, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, to oppose the Arab secular governments that stripped the Islamic elite of its power. This group, led by Hassan al-Banna, felt no Islamic country should tolerate a secular government. Islam had always been the judge, jury, and executioner over the people.

This militant group armed and trained itself and became such a problem for the Egyptian government that the terrorist leader, al-Banna, was executed but this only elevated him to martyrdom. The movement grew in power and status.

In the 1950s, a new and extremely radical leader, Sayyid Qutb, convinced his followers that the Quran justified the killing of fellow Muslims. In his book, “Milestones,” he encouraged a jihad to remove secular Muslim leaders and claimed it was the duty of all Muslims to return Islam to its former power and glory. Following strict Islamic law could only do this. Secular Muslims were put in a category with Christians and Jews—they were infidels.

Sayyid Qutb was also executed by the Egyptians in 1966, but the Islamic terrorist movement grew and expanded and now has branches of loyal followers in over 70 countries around the globe and these Islamic terrorists are more than willing to kill for their cause.

The embarrassing defeat of Islamic/Arab countries by the lowly “monkey-Jew” in the 1967 Six Day War gave fuel to the Islamic terrorist movement. This humiliating loss to the tiny Jewish state was proof for Islamic terrorists that secular Islamic states were against all that was Islamic. Islamic countries were defeated by a people that True Islam does not even consider human.

Mu'ammar Qaddaffi seized power in Libya in 1969 and he used Libya’s vast oil wealth to fund Islamic terror around the world. A decade later, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini overthrew the secular government in Iran by taking the American embassy personnel hostage and keeping them as prisoners for over a year.

The 1980s saw the Iranian-backed terror group, Hezbollah strike American troops on a peacekeeping mission in Lebanon and the American embassy was bombed. The United States made the tragic mistake of leaving Lebanon, and the Islamists saw this as a sign of weakness, and a rash of attacks on Americans continued unpunished around the world for the next two decades.

True Islam had its golden moment on 9/11 when it succeeded in attacking the “great Satan” on its own soil. Their bragging and celebration was brief. The American response to that attack took the terrorists by surprise. Believing America was a weak paper-tiger, I believe the invasion of Afghanistan surprised bin Laden. The loss of Afghanistan enraged the Islamists. Afghanistan was True Islam’s model for the world. Even more insulting was that the majority of Afghani people seemed to welcome the overthrow of the Taliban."


Comment #25 - Posted by: Joe at October 6, 2008 11:46 PM

#22 nolan Clark

It has nothing to do with 9/11. I'd recommend you watch the film before lambasting it. It's basically just an educational piece about our economy. Pretty relevant stuff considering the state our nation finds itself in. I don't agree with everything the guy says, but you might learn something.

Comment #26 - Posted by: Genghis at October 6, 2008 11:49 PM

The workout on Sunday killed my wrists. The worst was the front squats. I raised my elbows up as high as I could and the bar was practically cutting off my wind pipe. The bars rests on the front delts and my fingertips, but the pressure bending the wrists back is too much. What am I missing?

Comment #27 - Posted by: Mike at October 6, 2008 11:51 PM

First and foremost:

"Comment #7 "We all know the American armed forces are up to the job,"

Strongly disagree with you on that one. I see nothing to support that claim.

Comment #9 - Posted by: Steve at October 6, 2008 9:00 PM"

...obviously you don't know our American armed forces. We're more than up to the job, thank you, we're chomping at the f'in bit. Give us a task and we'll accomplish it. I'm sorry, I don't get what you're not seeing. If you so choose do us all a favor and sign your name on the f'in line and get yourself over to Afghanistan or Iraq and tell me exactly what it is that you're not seeing it... cuz I'm not seeing what you're not seeing. No one is more ready to go out there and paint the towns red, white and blue than our troops and for you to even suggest otherwise is equal to nothing more than spitting on our flag. But I guess I can't argue considering I have friends and family over there with bullets flying in their direction so you have that exact right to make that opinion.

... whew, anyway.. wow to Obama. Did he really say that? This is why I don't think someone who has no experience with the military should become our leader. Anyone should be able to see that terrorism is not territorial. Hell, that's why it's called the "war on terrorism" and not "Afghanistan War." Granted people will say "the war in Iraq" or "the war in Afghanistan" but we really haven't declared war on any one country, have we? It's not going to stop with Afghanistan, and anyone saying that Mr. Totten is off-base with his claims needs to maybe get out and learn something. I'm sorry ladies and gents if you don't believe in a world filled with war and would just prefer that big ol' Uncle Sam tuck his tail in between his legs and head home because you're "tired of hearing about the war on the news." I'm so sorry that it bores you, but war is how the world works. In case you didn't realize, we are Rome now. With the risk of sounding like a chest beating testosterone junkie... The only way to maybe stop this terrorism is to go out and show the world that we are not ones to be messed with. Will that win popularity contests? No, probably not, BUT it would probably get the rest of the world to lay off for a while. After all how long did it take after WWII for people to mess with us again. A while, right? No one likes America anyway. We're too free and "crazy" for those countries. I'm sorry, but I like the way we're going with our freedoms. As long as other countries don't like how we run things then there will be terrorism. I know that's sounds contradictory to what I just said, but pay attention. Announcing our presence and carrying that big stick will probably scare people away for a while, but they're still going to be out there hating us. The only way to please the people who just want the troops to come home and stay out of foreign affairs is to basically change our entire way of life to please those other people who oppose us now. "Oh please Mr. Al Qaeda leader man... how exactly would you like America to be run?" I'm sorry, but I'm not ready to roll over dead yet. Whether or not it ends in Afghanistan, I'm in it till the end homies. So should everyone who wants to call themselves Americans.

-now I'll get off my soapbox_

Comment #28 - Posted by: Sailor Erin at October 7, 2008 12:03 AM

More importantly I need to do more pullups! Yes, this is the most important thing in the world to me right now. Only slightly more so than Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, Molecular Fusion, Dog Racing and spending time learning the ways of ancient Samuri. It is certainly more important that arguements about world politics. So if anyone can help me do like 30 pullups from my 17 by Christmas I would be super excited.

Sgt. Mess

Comment #29 - Posted by: Sgt. Mess at October 7, 2008 12:05 AM

#22 Genghis

Let me make clear that I don't agree with everything the guy says in that film. I'd be happy enough for the US to just get back to the Greenback currency. My beef is not with capitalism, its with the Fed.

Comment #30 - Posted by: Genghis at October 7, 2008 12:10 AM

I'm writing from a FOB in "the STAN"

The local people are so devastatingly poor how could we not help.
The Taliban/ Other Armed Groups are a mafia.
We need mentor teams to keep teaching and building the capacity of the locals to secure / govern themselves.

This won't end in 2011 but its still worth the fight.

Comment #31 - Posted by: ginger-eight at October 7, 2008 12:36 AM

Looking gorgeous as usual Micki....love your shorts!

Comment #32 - Posted by: Littleredhead at October 7, 2008 12:47 AM

Steve from comment number's 4 and 7. Are you f*$@ing stupid!? Not up to the task!? On what data do you make that claim? And don't tell me the news. I haven't met a Soldier, Sailer, Airman or Marine in the last 11 years that aren't up to any task put to them. This is my third deployment to the desert. This is the third time I've voluteered to be shot at for people like you.
You don't agree with government policy fine but saying America's forces or for that matter any of the coalition troops I've had the honor of serving with aren't up to the job is bull and you would do better to keep your mouth shut then offer an opinion on something you obviously know nothing about. Like my dad always told me its better to keep quiet and let people think you're dumb then to open your mouth and prove it.
-On Isreal and Palestine - every time Palestine opens the borders or lays off Palestine they have civilians get killed. It would piss us off too if Mexico was bombing Texas and California every other day. Isreal is trying but the Palestanians get in the way.
- On foreign entaglement- every foreign interest is to support democracy or protect our way of life. Iraq invading Kuwait? Both. Kuwait is an elected government and provides us with oil. Unless you are riding a horse to work everyday and use candles and a wood burning stove be thankful. Like it or not we run on oil until we find alternatives.
-American Troops on the AP- There at the request or invitation of the sitting government. We provide money to the economy and protection for countries whose citizens are so rich off oil they import all their workers from garbage men to waiters and everything inbetween. The majority of their armed forces are poorly trained and can be overrun easily. Case in point Iraq invading Kuwait.
- The only people they are declaring war on is the US - Don't even know where to start on that ignorant statement. So I'm not. Steve you are wrong in every letter you have typed.
Sorry this was so long. I don't usually post but "Steve" has me pissed.

Comment #33 - Posted by: HLCIV at October 7, 2008 12:52 AM

Just thinking out lod here, how many neo-cons, anti-liberals who post here who are military aged and NOT currently serving in the Armed Forces? hmm, I suspect many.

So shut your hole and join up.

If your a CF'er, basic training should be cake.

Back up bravado with deeds - unless you follow in the foot steps of Cheney, Limbaugh, and Rumsfield.

I love when neo-con Chicken Hawks rant - its so comical.

Comment #34 - Posted by: SheepDawg007 at October 7, 2008 1:00 AM

Also "Steve" you need to read Brigitte Gabriel's book titled "Because They Hate". She is a survivor of the Lebanon civil war. FYI this is where the Muslim Jihadists attacked their own country men in Lebanon for being Christians not the US.

Comment #35 - Posted by: hlciv at October 7, 2008 1:03 AM


You have no idea of the caliber of individuals who post here.

Comment #36 - Posted by: Jeff at October 7, 2008 1:08 AM

Funny article, had a good laugh.

But the war between arabs and the Western civilisation began over 2000 years ago with the Hellenism (Alexander the Great) and the Roman Empire etc. Then it continued and reinforced in the 11th-15th century with the crusades, fight over trade routs, "holy" grounds, power, wealth etc...
The fact that George Bush called the war in Iraq for "a crusade" is just embarassing for him, his administration and all who voted for him.

Same now as then: The fighting soldier fight becuase he has to or because he believe in something. He dies or gets nothing back. The leaders risk nothing and gets rich.

To all ppl who consider war is the only option: When will this end? How many lives will be lost and how much money are we gonna put into this? Until all iraqis and afghans are killed? Until all "terrorists" are killed? You cant kill a way of thinking, an idea, an ideology, a culture or anything else that is not a person.

This is gonna end like Vietnam.

Comment #37 - Posted by: Peter at October 7, 2008 1:14 AM

#4 and #11;
Maybe its just because I am getting older, but it seems to me that people are becoming morally lazier and lazier as this country ages and the ideals and sense of justice that catalyzed its inception are washed away in an overwhelming sense of complacency and indifference. This point is illustrated by your comments and apparent lack of experience with all things real in the world outside of the US.

The idea (I call it "American Progressive Hope") that no injustice is worth American Justice is born out of an unwillingness to be popular in countries where CNN broadcasts.

"How would we feel if China invaded Mexico, or enforced a no-fly zone over Canada, or had battleships in the Gulf of Mexico?"

If Mexico were gassing its own people and maintaining a dictatorial, deadly and oppressive way of governing, then we would probably invade Mexico ourselves, as the UN wrote more and more resolutions and asked them nicely to stop. Ive been on the ground, Ive seen suffering, resolutions and ideas about sending in peacekeepers dont stop suffering.

"The terrorist ideology will continue to thrive until our foreign entanglements come to an end."

My first reaction to this is to avoid dignifying it with a response. But I can't control myself. Simply put, there were terrorists before America. There are today terrorists who operate entirely outside of and with no regard for America, and there will be terrorists long after America has evolved or dissapeared.

Hope is not a course of action. Hoping that isolationism, as you two seem to desire, will end attacks on Americans and oppression of others does not translate to resolution of the problems of the world.

Steve and Tom, please go join the Peace Corps if you don't want to go fight for our nation and our fundamental concepts of freedom and democracy. At least then you will get to see what its like to live under Hugo Chavez or Robert Mugabe. And please stop falling prey to the ideologies of Noam Chomsky and George Soros which have so corrupted the Democratic Party of this country.

Comment #38 - Posted by: jongb at October 7, 2008 3:19 AM

I meant "unpopular."

Comment #39 - Posted by: jongb at October 7, 2008 3:20 AM

#4 steve

You are misinformed about muslims not attacking buddists and hindus. Pakistan is currently in a "holy war" with India over cashmir although it seems their biggest threat now seems to be their own radical creations. As for buddhists afghanistan once had some of the worlds most impressive buddhist monuments but were destroyed by the wahabist taliban regime. There is also a profound racist hatred of a ethic group called the "hazara" largly because of there east asian buddhist ancestry.

Comment #40 - Posted by: jamesthered at October 7, 2008 3:33 AM

Totten's critique of Secretary Gate's quote (and Senator Obama's use of it) hinges on an interpretation of "war on terror". If we define "war on terrorism" to mean the "war on Al Qaeda as an organized entity" then there is some merit to the position that the focus of this fight belongs in Afghanistan. If, however, we define "war on terror" as "war on violently extremist individuals/groups and the vague ideology that loosely unites them" then of course Afghanistan is neither the beginning nor the end of that war and nor is that fight purely or even mostly a military one. Totten takes a quote based on the former definition of war on terror and critiques it using arguments based on the latter definition. This slight of hand, in my opinion, contributes little to the discussion of the real choices facing the United States and our potential leaders' positions on them.

Comment #41 - Posted by: Ed at October 7, 2008 3:59 AM

Hate to say it, but history seems to suggest that no matter what courage or firepower the occupiers possess, the Afghans just will not lie down or give up. They are a stubborn hard people who don't like foreigners telling them how to live. (Would we?)

Even if they did - you could assume that the real terrorists would be long gone by then.

IMO this 'occupation' will get us nowhere. Take out the bad guys as and when you find them, but sacrificing more of our young men is futile.

Comment #42 - Posted by: Gary at October 7, 2008 4:02 AM

No rest day here. Another 8 hours of combatives...I'm so sore

Comment #43 - Posted by: 2LT Christopher Meyer 22/5'10"/195lbs at October 7, 2008 4:11 AM

The American military is not up to the job because it is not possible to win against radical fundamentalism militarily. US forces are being asked to do what they do best (kill bad guys and destroy their stuff). They do it very well, and could do even better with more support. But, sadly, that will never be enough.

Comment #44 - Posted by: carl at October 7, 2008 4:29 AM

Carl that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. We are up to the job and we win countless small battles taking our cause in the right direction, forward, every day. Never doubt the might machine that is the U.S. Armed Forces.

Comment #45 - Posted by: Sgt. Mess at October 7, 2008 4:39 AM

To those of you take offense to Steve comment 7, could it be he meant that given what Sailor Erin said: "Anyone should be able to see that terrorism is not territorial", there is evidence to suggest that the armed forces are not the most appropriate state instrument to fight this war?

Comment #46 - Posted by: Prole at October 7, 2008 5:06 AM

The article is misguided. It starts with a quote from Obama saying:

“Secretary of Defense Robert Gates himself acknowledges the war on terrorism started in Afghanistan and it needs to end there.”

It proceeds on the basis that Obama is naive because he would do nothing after Afghanistan.

This is a distortion. Obama and Biden have a better appreciation of how to move forward. They favour tactical, orderly withdrawal and handover of Iraq and Afghanistan when it is safe and sensible to do so. They would couple this with ramping up smarter international relations to build a powerful consensus amongst the free world. They would not be so quick to put their troops in harm's way in a war with no clear end-game. Is this not a good thing? Sounds to me like they're actually listening to Petraeus. The Republicans talk tough but I see no leadership, only beating chests and bravura.

Biden is the best asset the US has to rebuild its international reputation power over the next 4 years. It's been harmed by Gitmo, Abu G, rendition and you-know-who in the White House. I hope the electorate are smart enough to seize the opportunity.

Bravery of the forces fighting the WOT has never been in doubt. The brain-power - and bona fides - of their political masters is what is at issue.

I resent the perpetuation of a fanatical paranoia by many in the media that terrorism is everywhere and needs to be defeated by whatever means "because they hate our freedoms". I want a smart person in the White House to take control of this mess and sort it out with the best interest of the US and its military at heart.


Comment #47 - Posted by: J1 at October 7, 2008 5:32 AM

#18 AND #25

I know you guys are probably under the impression that we "invaded" Iraq, well we didn't. We were asked to come there to oust a regime that stood for murdering around 300,000 innocent men, women and children. Iraq is slowly becoming a more stable nation. And if you are looking for some thing like "well they never attacked us" you know who else "never attacked us" the Germans in world war 2, it was the Japanese and last time I checked nobody complained that we helped oust Hitler.

You blame something on the president here are a list of something those "Precious" left wingers did......

JFK started the Vietnam war in 1962 and they never attacked us

Clinton also went to war with Bosnia and they never attaked us.

You know after hours of talking with friends, and sometimes even arguing about this stuff, no matter how we put it liberal will never understand.

And as for people that even mention Israel....they have been fighting with certain religions for years over a city that everyone think is their holy land. So after getting picked on for centuries they wanna stick up for themselves then so be it they have every right to.

ON a completely different note...does anyone here do the crossfit endurance with these WOD's and Barbarra is one of the worst....and I mean that in a good way

Comment #48 - Posted by: Cory M/24/230 at October 7, 2008 5:36 AM

KCN, great point on political will. Per social contract, government exists by the consent of the governed, thus political will is really the people's will.

Problem: do our people have the will? Does America have the balls to celebrate the true, virtuous core on which it was founded? Enough that its willing to do what is necessary to win this war of cultures???

Or are we just going to sit comfortably behind our oceans and smugly rot away?

Second problem: can this war be won on foreign soil in the absence of a military state? We can mandate social and governmental functions and hold the bike seat until they gain enough momentum when we have an overwhelming military presence. But this radical ideology is ideally crafted to subvert the society we claim to hold dear. Under the cover of religious freedom, radical Islam installs a comprehensive social code and SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT which supplants the one on which most of Western society is founded. Unless we grow the stones to call a spade a spade, the U.S. as we have known it will eventually fall in line right behind Western Europe and the dodo.


Made up the deadlift, hang clean, front squat, push jerk WOD from 2 days ago. As rx'd, no chalk, 27:17.

Comment #49 - Posted by: Justin D _ 29/M/6'/200 at October 7, 2008 5:43 AM

#11- Tom Jefferson
We did not "help to create Bin Laden by supporting the Taliban against Russia".

1. The Taliban did not exist during the Soviet invasion against Afghanistan. We supported the Mujahadin.

2. Read "The Looming Towers" by Lawrence Wright. Bin Laden was always strange, even amongst his own family. The Bin Laden family is large and of all his siblings he is the only Islamist fanatic. Bin Laden hated the West, including America, even while we were helping Afghanistan in the 80's.

#18-Sam F. "Israel is still doing almost nothing to solve the Palestinian problem."

The only thing acceptable to HAMAS and many Palestinians is for Israel not to exist at all. Israel cannot "solve" that problem. They can only defend themselves and co-exist. Arabs live peacefully in Israel. Jews cannot live peacefully in the Palestinian territories.

If Israel's enemies laid down their weapons there would be peace between Israel and Palestinians. If Israel laid down their arms they would be attacked every day. The same applies to America and our enemies.

The US military is ALWAYS "up for the job". The only thing that has ever interfered with the military's inability to accomplish a task is our own politics, not a foreign enemy.

Comment #50 - Posted by: George at October 7, 2008 5:49 AM

We have to forgive everyone and live in peace. If you say that it is impossible, then you should ask yourself why.

Comment #51 - Posted by: OEF/OIF Veteran at October 7, 2008 5:50 AM


Jeff, caliber of intellect means zilch when there is no backing up bravado with deeds.

I hate the war in Iraq. I have worked in Iraq for 4 years at Abu Ghraib, the Green Zone, BIAP and, like most soldiers (I have served as both soldier and civilian), was within inches of my life multiple times.

I serve despite my personal opinions of any administration or politician. I'm here because of the people and the fact its the highest honor to work with the military. Not all we do is good - but the alternative of sitting on my ass at home and talking the talk about killing terrorists is asanine to me.

Its like being pregeant, you are or your not. If you support the war and are military aged (18-40) but not at your local recruiting office - shush, you have zilch in credibility. At least I respect uber liberals for being too p*y to come over here, at least they are consistent in their belief system - albeit lame.

It would be the equivalent of being fat and lazy yet coaching at a CF Level 2 seminar- talking someone through a muscle up but not able to do one..

I have literally come to blows with lame neo-cons and uber conservatives who are Chicken Hawks. If you support the war with such vehemance as many posters/bloggers do AND your military aged, shut your trap, goto the local recruiting office and sign up as an infantryman in the Army or Marines.

If you have served previously - respect. If not - get to the local recruiter ASAP.

Enough said, stop this Chicken Hawk bravado crap, its comical - and entertaining, but also sad - in a very Rumsfield/Limbaugh sorta way.

Comment #52 - Posted by: SheepDawg007 at October 7, 2008 5:53 AM

Quick comment -


Germany declared war on us first.

I agree with #45. Its a social change that needs to take place, democracy wont work in these countries until they have developed the idea that people have basic inalienable rights. Without those, democracy falls apart.

Comment #53 - Posted by: Crazyguywithasword at October 7, 2008 5:59 AM

america did invade iraq, saddam didnt ask you to come and kill him did he? as for saying about how bad iraq's human rights were, there are more people dying post saddam than before. Also, if its about human rights why didnt america invade china after tianamin square? or zimbabwe? or sudan? or israel for stealing land off the palestinians? the reasons at the time were purely about WOMD which did not exist. We should not have invaded Iraq. Iraq was nothing to do with alqueda until it was destablised by an invasion. That said i respect troops and the difficult job they do, and i realise that we cant just pull out now because we realise its not going to be 'won' in years but decades, because the polical culture of Iraq must change to match its new democratic institutions before it will be truely democratic.
On a lighter note, i did the deadlift-power clean-front squat- push jerk WOD today, i did 2 rounds in 13 mins @ 40k and i had to leave it to go to a lecture. it absolutely destroyed me! so much harder than it looks!
great article, thanks for posting it.

Comment #54 - Posted by: Tom M/19/70k/ 5'11 at October 7, 2008 6:06 AM

I like the shirt in the picture...earn your scabs.


Comment #55 - Posted by: KevinT at October 7, 2008 6:11 AM

Though I agree with the article, the author doesn't really propose the notion of when to stop?

The country (and world) is in the midst of an economic meltdown and we spending billions upon billions of dollars fighting a gang with no soverign nation. Sure they are in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let's just assume that in 3 years we "beat" them in those countries. That's fine and dandy, but what happens to all the teenagers who were breed to hate us? O yeah, and they so happen to live in Saudia Arabia, Pakistan and South Korea? Do we invade those countries too? Where does it end?

I am totally for bringing the fight to them, but our country is horribly balancing on a double edge sword....and maybe that's where they want us to be.

Comment #56 - Posted by: Double Zero at October 7, 2008 6:11 AM

"Obama & Biden have a better appreciation of how to move forward".
"Biden is the best asset the U.S. has to rebuild it's international reputation power over the next four years."

Please explain what you're basing your assertions on.
What in Biden's 35 year career supports this? What in Obama's 143 days in the Senate before he started campaigning supports this?

Is it Biden telling a group of American-Indians that "you can't get a cup of coffee in Delaware without having an Indian accent"? Is it his failed ideas on foreign policy?

Is it the fact that Obama keeps company with a convicted terrorist, America haters and corrupt individuals?

Please base your answers on actions performed by these individuals not on things said while campaigning. Thanks.

Comment #57 - Posted by: George at October 7, 2008 6:16 AM

For those of you that have STILL not seen this, please...I beg of you...


Seriously, if you want to show your support for our troop, click on the link and take 4 minutes out of your prescious day and watch....

Thank you!


Train Hard and Support Our Troops!

Comment #58 - Posted by: JroCk at October 7, 2008 6:36 AM

#53 Sheep

Thanks for the more thoughtful reply. I didn't say anything about caliber of intellect, and perhaps I took too much away from the implications of your first post, but anyway...

Are there millions of people out there who don't have a clue? Of course. And they reside on all sides of the debate. But the argument that any military-aged, able-bodied individual who supports a particular conflict is obligated to enlist is flawed. This would be in the best interest of no one.

You admit that you do not serve based on the policies of any one individual or administration. Nor do I. Nor does anyone who understands their oath. Therefore, it is inconsistent to say that anyone who supports this particular administration's policies ought to enlist.

America is not well served when the "neo-cons" are shamed into enlistment, and the "uber-liberals" are accused of cognitive dissonance should they to do the same. Those who understand what they believe will make the appropriate choice.

Comment #59 - Posted by: Jeff at October 7, 2008 6:38 AM

George 58, you ask for evidence of the grounds on which I argue that the Obama / Biden ticket know how to move forward and that Biden is an asset in international relations which the US sorely needs.

Evidence that Joe Biden has a track record on international relations? Google it yourself! Try "Biden and Darfur" or "Biden and Kosovo" or even "Biden and International Relations".

On Obama, he hasn't been a Senator for too long, so his list of legisltative accomplishments is rather short - but is impressive and includes a chemical weapons non-proliferation bill.

Crucially, on "accomplishments", neither has blindly supported Bush for the last 8 years.

Comment #60 - Posted by: J1 at October 7, 2008 7:07 AM

No time to read all the comments, but will make one. As we've seen in the first 20 comments or so, propaganda has an effect. It uses the congenital predispositions of people, and offers them "facts" which support their existing biases. The effort is then made to repeat them in as many places, as often as possible, to create the illusion of generalized agreement, and to make it impossible to consider that the underlying conceptual basis is utterly and completely devoid of in depth analysis.

People killed people before the American "empire". I was just listening last night about the ill fated Athenian effort to conquer Syracuse in Sicily in the 4th century BC.

Aggressive violence is a given throughout human history. Why is Iran an Islamic nation, and why is Pakistan an Islamic nation? Why is all of Northern Africa Islamic? Because they were conquered. They were beaten in pitched warfare, and given the choices of conversion, death, or permanent status as second class citizens of the Islamic colonialists. Pakistan, of course, was conquered at least twice (actually, it's more than that), the second time by the British, who created it as an Islamic nation as part of their divide and conquer policy.

The demand that violence cease is a ridiculous one, based on even a superficial understanding of history. You know when we see peace? When a hegemonic power enforces it through effective police power. When Rome conquered nations, it ended in almost all cases endemic and perennial low level wars that have characterized man's history from the beginning.

America acts as that peace keeper now. Our preference is to build peace and influence by spreading wealth and self government to nations that have never known anything but poverty, and autocracy.

We do not invade nations to impose taxes, or to steal from them. In the case of Iraq, we are not even remotely close to covering the costs we have incurred, much less making a profit. Same thing in Afghanistan.

There is always a top dog. If there isn't, there is chronic low level warfare. This is historical fact.

In America, we have the most benign, principled superpower in recorded history. We are trying hard to give Iraq back to the Iraqis, and for right now they want us to stay. When they want us to leave, we will leave.

We are trying hard to build a stable regime in Afghanistan. When they want us gone, we will leave. Right now, the government would not last long without us.

Ultimately, in considering the War on Terror, we have to understand the pervasive vanity that motivates our enemies. They cannot stand the ascendancy of the West, and the defeats suffered by Muslims many hundreds of years ago. Israel is merely the most recent example, but their memory is long.

Our very existence--the existence of any non-Islamic nation on the face of the earth--is the root problem.

We win this thing by reversing the ideological defeats we suffer in every Wahabbist madrassa every day. The image I have in mind is laying a sandbag on those things. Maybe we begin interdicting their funding, infiltrating agents provocateur, and certainly by supporting moderate clerics in every way we can, which last does appear to be happening.

I'm pretty sneaky, and assume our guys at Christians in Action are as well, so more ideas could be created which I won't mention here.

Bottom line: these people like killing, and get big woodies when they can torture or decapitate someone, even a fellow Muslim. If this isn't evil, I'm not sure what would be.

Comment #61 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 7, 2008 7:09 AM

TWO THings:
One dont cook the PVC! use electrical conduit pipesn that comes in curves, mate them together with PVC glue.

Next: comment 7...US troops are up to anything anywhere anytime ..i expect more support out of crossfitters

Comment #62 - Posted by: Dave at October 7, 2008 7:09 AM

Does anyone know the name of the person in the picture,is that Trish B? Does anyone know where that's taken? Thanks

Comment #63 - Posted by: Paul M at October 7, 2008 7:18 AM

Both candidates seem to ignore a fundamental fact that this "war" is not primarily a military conflict and the long term placement of US military forces in territory largely favorable to their opponents without achieving some political or economic goal is simply leaving your behind bare to be kicked again and again.

The question (for anyone practicing realpolitik) in both Iraq and Afghanistan is what needs to be done militarily in order to disentangle from those situations. Both territories are historically places where outside actors have expended vast resources and lives for at best a zero sum game.

The sooner we realize that neither of these countries will ever culturally support the fantasies of governance that westerners are superimposing on them the sooner we will be able to focus all of our resources on fighting the real war, which is a shadow war, and which doesn't lend itself to policy pronouncements or indeed "winning" in the sense that most westerners, conservative and liberal alike, would like it to.

Comment #64 - Posted by: MacDaddy M/39/5'10"/185 at October 7, 2008 7:18 AM

Sam F - why don't you thnk the Barbary Pirates hijacking foreign vessels (British, French, and US) and then demanding "tribute" and payment for their release counts as terrorism? What is your operative definition of terrorism? Kidnapping doesn't count? Murder, extortion, etc., don't count as terror tactics because...?

The Dey and Pasha of those North African countries were simply another in the long line of terrorist states.

As to the comments about left/right - I very rarely use that dichotomy, but it is/was useful in the context of the remarks that prompted it. It is a shorthand term for a set of values/ideas/memes that continue to be propagated by self-loathing intellectuals who cannot find anything good the US has ever done. Anything. The logic that justifies such inanities is, as I have shown and have yet to be refuted, circular (and contradictory) reasoning at its worst. We need to teach rhetoric in schools again. Not because it would make people better at arguing, but because it might make them better at THINKING, and thus cutting down on such blatantly knot-headed comments.

Peter (#38) illustrates a species of this foolishness and even trots out the great leftist victory (Vietnam) somehow as proof that fighting AQ and other terrorist organizations is "wrong" -

"To all ppl who consider war is the only option: When will this end? How many lives will be lost and how much money are we gonna put into this? Until all iraqis and afghans are killed? Until all "terrorists" are killed? You cant kill a way of thinking, an idea, an ideology, a culture or anything else that is not a person.

This is gonna end like Vietnam."

Notice all of the implicit & explicit (and false) assumptions:
1- That we're killing Iraqis and Afghans wantonly. (This is a repeat of the Vitenam meme from earlier leftist diatribes - we were "baby-killers" there, too, right?) For those who haven't been there, virtually all of the Afghans I worked with and knew in my multiple deployments there (except the Taliban) were overwhelmingly in support of the US presence. We're winning in Iraq, too, btw.
2 - That conducting the War on Terror consists of nothing more than fighting battles. A good friend of mine is currently running a provincial reconstruuction team in western Afghanistan. We build more stuff (schools, clinics, wells, etc.) than you could possibly imagine. Roads, infrastructure, you name it. That is part and parcel of showing the local populace that we're the good guys - that's part of how you win.
3 - That the war is unwinnable ("you can't defeat an ideology") and therefore we should just quit. Of course. Like you can't defeat communism, right? Or fascism? Or Nazism? After all, these are simply "ideologies", much like terrorism. Now, don't get me wrong, terror tactics will always exist. But what we're talking about, and the article is getting at, is a specific brand of terrorism aimed at spreading a worldwide jihad. So, there are three quick falsities in that small rant.

But this is the problem with this kind of "leftism" - it is replete with these kinds of falsities and at some point, it gets tiring to point out just how blatantly, ridiculously, morally bankrupt such tripe is. By the way, if Vietnam was "wrong" then I guess the liberals of the 60's were cool with the consequences that flowed form it - namely the massive slaughter that followed our precipitous withdrawal, the "reeducation camps", the killing fields in Laos. That was all "good" then because that was the outcome, a very predictable one that many had warned would come if we abandoned the South as people like the "hero" John Kerry advocated at the time (and even later). What a proud moment that was for the America-haters.

Now I remember why I was taking a self-imposed hiatus from the rest day comments.

Did Barbara today. Wow, I didn't remember it sucking that badly.

Comment #65 - Posted by: Dale_Saran at October 7, 2008 7:20 AM

#63 - Paul M

That is the beautiful Mikki Martin of CrossFit Kids. The picture is taken at Brand X

Comment #66 - Posted by: Nichole D at October 7, 2008 7:39 AM

Dale wrote-
"Now I remember why I was taking a self-imposed hiatus from the rest day comments."

That goes for me as well. Things were good for a while...

Life has a funny way of changing when you least expect it to. But that is what change is all about. Sometimes it just takes you a bit more to bounce back than other times. Our family is still doing great together, my husband has always been and continues to be my rock, L is really getting into Fencing and N learned how to Surf this summer. It's just the other stuff (business failures, disappointments with friends, death of friends, etc.) that brought me down to a level I hadn't been at in years. Climbing out of that hole again has been hard.

I still think of all of you who pitched in for my rower (I use it often) and those who were supportive of me. My heart is doing well with only one very small incident in the past 15 months since my surgery.

Cherish the good stuff, all of it.


Comment #67 - Posted by: jknl at October 7, 2008 8:12 AM

Just because someone is opposed to war doesn't mean they hate America. Are we so far gone that we can't envision a world without war?

Comment #68 - Posted by: theresa at October 7, 2008 8:22 AM


Comment #69 - Posted by: JroCk at October 7, 2008 8:23 AM


I am aware they declared war on us but I simply making the point of who attacked us first.....


I understand that the entire thing is not about Human Rights.....but I do not really see too many people complaining about, in your words, Saddam being "murdered".

WW 2 was not COMPLETELY about human rights but when you rid the world of a guy like Hitler or Saddam in this case, then yes you make the WORLD as a whole a better place.

Of course if you like Genocides then maybe you would want to keep thsoe people around

Comment #70 - Posted by: Cory M/24/230 at October 7, 2008 8:38 AM



Five rounds, each for time of:
20 Pull-ups
30 Push-ups
40 Sit-ups
50 Squats

Rest precisely three minutes between each round.

Post time for each of five rounds to comments.
total: 21:10 new pr

Comment #71 - Posted by: brandon crossfitrockford at October 7, 2008 8:40 AM


Great to hear from you. Glad to hear you are pressing on. Not sure sympathy will help much, but I will say that in my own life I believe I have endured about as much misery as a single body can take without breaking, and it's done me good. Never abandon hope, and never doubt that there are good people in this world who will never quit no matter what happens.

Have faith in yourself, and no other person or thing can wreck you.

I will add that I missed out on the rower, but wear my T-shirts quite often.

#68: the question is not a world without war. It's a question of how we achieve it. It's unpatriotic to believe that a world without war will be achieved in a world without America, which is the default position of most leftists. That we are the problem, and not a large part of the cure.

Most of them seem to feel if something is bad, anything else will be better. By this criterion the Chinese, as one example, would be ever so much more benign in Iraq than we have been. They would be ever so much more responsive to the suffering of their own people and the developing world, and everything would be better.

One gets this sense, reading leftist rants. None of them, of course, bear a moment's scrutiny, but of course they never receive scrutiny from anyone on the inside. This is how this malignant virus continues and propagates.

There are many, many people in this and other nations who are eager, even feverish to surrender their own hated autonomy--the freedom to be who they "are", bought at the price of traditional morality, and moral order--to be a part of a system, a cult, where they are told what to think, and who to be.

This fact is obscured by what I term quantitative diversity, which is diversity with respect to the foods they eat, the books they read, the clothes they wear, their sexual habits, cultural interests, etc. They are diverse in this sense, which is purely external.

When it comes to political views, however, the circle closes, and you are either for or against them. There is no debate. There is no rational discourse of the sort which supports a healthy democracy. There is, rather, a feverish effort to suppress dissent through mockery, distraction, and--where possible--through judicial action, as happened in the Roe v. Wade decision.

I see this every Rest Day. I can argue my points. I can understand the other side. And I come down, every time, in roughly the same place I started. Not out of dogmatism, or closed mindedness, but simply because when I make my cases, no one is able to present a credible countercase that does not require me to presume Bush is an idiot then work backwards from there.

Comment #72 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 7, 2008 8:47 AM

Ref #45 carl, #46 Sgt Mess and everyone else discussing whether or not the US military is up to the task of defeating terrorism.

First I'd like to expand the discussion to all professional military forces and state that they can play a part in defeating terrorism, but cannot win it alone. As has been shown on several occasions (OP Medusa in Kandahar being the best Canadian example) terrorists cannot stand up to professional militaries in a conventional battle. They may cause casualties in ambushes, with IEDs, suicide bombs and rocket attacks, but they cannot beat us on the battle field. However the battle is fought on more than planes than the conventional military one, and to win the whole campaign, we have to win on these other planes (see my post #3 for some of these planes). To win these planes the military needs outside support and will have to support others.
Bottom line, the US military and allies can most likely destroy any conventional force out there, but that alone will not win the war on terror.

Comment #73 - Posted by: KCN at October 7, 2008 8:53 AM

Did yesterday's workout.

Comment #74 - Posted by: Knuckles at October 7, 2008 8:53 AM

!st time poster!! Wish this was around back in the day. I tell people about crossfit everywhere I go. Some day I'll get to a Cert. My son and I plan on attending one some time next year. I've been doing crossfit for close to 1 year. I had two major knee surgeries over 20 years ago and due to my fear and ignorance I didn't work my legs enough. But now with crossfit I am and what a difference! I'm proof that if you don't mind a little pain and are willing to be patient the results will come no matter what your age.
Be safe and work hard

Comment #75 - Posted by: Coach Ace at October 7, 2008 8:59 AM

kate (jknl)

great to hear from you. i really miss you and your upbeat, positive personality. thanks for the update, and glad to hear the family is doing well, and keep that chin up. :-) thanks for being you. xoxo -n

Comment #76 - Posted by: nadia shatila at October 7, 2008 9:29 AM

Funny the Barbary Pirates came up. If someone reads up on this they will find out that the Barbary Pirates were Muslim and if you converted to Islam you were not imprisoned. Sounds familiar in today's world where if you convert you will not be killed. You are no longer an infidel.

Don't know what "Tom Jefferson" post is smoking. Just too far out there to even respond.

Now let's discuss Israel. A country of 7 million people is blamed for all the headaches for the middle east. An area comprised of 193 million Arabs.

And for all the free-thinkers who believe that if the American military stayed home it would solve everything. Dream on. You're smoking the same thing as "Tom Jefferson".

Comment #77 - Posted by: trace at October 7, 2008 9:31 AM

been on Zone diet exactly one month

Sept 7th 190lbs 16% BF

Oct. 7th 182lbs 11.9% BF

Thanks Crossfit for the advice, I'm in the best shape of my life....

Comment #78 - Posted by: scott at October 7, 2008 9:37 AM

We did Caleb in honor of Caleb Elijah Stecker - check out the affiliate page and scroll down.

8 rounds
400 m run
8 lunges
8 box jumps as high as you can handle

Amy 37/63"/126
28" box

Neil 41/70"/175
20" box

God, I hope we never have to bury a child.

Comment #79 - Posted by: Neil&Amy in Blacksburg at October 7, 2008 9:37 AM


Crossfit Strength Experiment, completion of week 1 round 2:

Buy-in DL 205#, 12-9-6, one min. rest between, no breaks.

WOD: AMRAP 15 min.
5 reps Push Press 100#
10 PU
15 Squat

8 rounds + 5 PP

Cash-out 1:30 V-sit

Comment #80 - Posted by: bingo at October 7, 2008 9:39 AM

27 yr / M / 5"11 / 162 lbs

I felt bold today so.....

250 strict pull ups ---> 22:58

I guess I take tomorrow off instead

Comment #81 - Posted by: Double Zero at October 7, 2008 10:19 AM

Do a search for Pashtuns. You will find that in four millennium, no group of invaders has been successful in invading or holding that area of the world, save the Pashtuns. When my battalion was deployed to Afghanistan, we had less than 1,000 Marines covering more than 4,000 square miles.

We got in firefights where we were outnumbered more than five to one. We will not succeed in Afghanistan without unilateral support of the Pashtun people, bottom line.

Comment #82 - Posted by: Mark Perna at October 7, 2008 10:25 AM

Did my own workout today. 14:32

"Pull, Push, Pull, Push"
Three Rounds:
500m Row
12 85# PP
15 Pullups
18 Pushups

It felt good. Any revisions or efforts? Comment back with my Comment # and tell me how it went!

Comment #83 - Posted by: AndrewRpe at October 7, 2008 10:25 AM


Happy birthday bro!
Thank you to you and your fellow troops kickin it with us this morning at Beach Crossfit at 6:30am! Great job to all of you!


Comment #84 - Posted by: JroCk at October 7, 2008 10:25 AM

Happy Birthday Tattoo Nicky!

Comment #85 - Posted by: Sailor Erin at October 7, 2008 10:41 AM

#83: if you're talking about Afghanistan (the Pashtuns in my understanding cover a region that includes parts of Pakistan), then Alexander did it. So did the Mughals, in my understanding.

The problems currently, in my understanding, are that we are undermanned, have not been able to set up a reliable national government since many local officials are corrupt, and that Pakistan has been tolerating the Taliban taking refuge in their northern regions, which they don't really control either.

With respect to the first, we need more help from our NATO allies. Specifically, it would, as I understand it, help immensely if they sent actual combat troops, and not flower growing hippies who want to help villagers raise chickens. That function is useful to a point, but not in the middle of a shooting war.

Out of respect to those troops, actually, the reality is probably that they are willing, but unable to help due to restrictions placed on them by their governments.

Corruption: not sure the solution. Self rule implies self rule. Nations comprised of individuals unable to reign in their own appetites will always wind up as autocracies. That lesson applies here too. Perhaps at some point our mores will rub off on them through osmosis. Perhaps we pay them to do their jobs, and exile, imprison or execute them if they fail to do their jobs. That's been the historical method.

Third: I thought I heard John McCain propose a very interesting idea in the first debate. What I understood him to say is he supported and take and hold strategy applied to Pakistan. What this would mean is that we support Pakistan in applying the same principles to their own nation that we applied in Iraq. They don't run their country. There are places where the national government simply isn't recognized.

If this approach is possible, it would take time, but most reliably generate the result of peace we all want. It avoids the necessity of unilateral US military action in Pakistan--which ultimately will hurt everyone--and bolsters an alliance rather than sever it. It serves our interests, the interests of the national government of Pakistan, and likely the interests of many people in Waziristan who would prefer to be non-partisan.

In any event, the long term goal in Afghanistan is to place the nation under the control of people who are not radicals, then leave. There is no reason the Pashtun should not be allowed to govern themselves, as long as they don't screw with us or neighbors who are our allies.

Comment #86 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 7, 2008 10:42 AM

Leftists, Rightists, Posters,

One of today’s posters wrote: "Most of them [leftists] seem to feel if something is bad, anything else will be better."

Perhaps. Perhaps most/many/some of them [leftists] feel that if something is bad, it can be improved, and where it is very bad, it must be improved.

Then it could go: "Most of them [rightists] seem to feel that if it is American, it doesn't need improving."

Perhaps. Perhaps most/many/some of them [rightists] seem to feel that what is good about America and its influence around the world should not be taken for granted, and where it is under attack, it should be defended.

Now, lets stop talking to each other like we're idiots and make a habit of construing each others’ points of view in the most positive light (even filling in inadequacies where required) and get down to something beyond intellectual preening.


If, as Totten in his opinion states: “Hardly anyone wants to think about the monumental size of this task or how long it will take…. No one can possibly foresee what event will actually put a stop to this war in the end. It is distant and unknowable. The world will change before we can even imagine what the final chapter might look like”, perhaps we should ask a few questions about this “task” and our commitment to it:

1. is it the War on Terror worth winning?
2. if so, why?
3. at what cost?
4. must we send our citizens to fight until the last terrorist or would-be terrorist is dead?
5. if not, is there some level of terrorism, at home and abroad that is tolerable, in the sense of not requiring massive foreign intervention and greater concentrations of state power at home?
6. if that level exists, would it be similar to that of the 1980-90’s – i.e., USS Cole, Nairobi, Atlanta Olympic Games, Oklahoma City, Lockerbie, Beirut, West Berlin, Air India and particularly the years 1983-86 see: http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/chronology.html
7. if that earlier level of terrorism is tolerable, is it more or less desirable in light of the cost of the alternatives – a War on Terror “of monumental” size and unforeseeable cost?
8. what would it take to return the world to that earlier level of terrorism?
9. what are our competing priorities? How do these, if they exist, change the answers to any or all of the questions above?

I don’t have the answers to these questions, and I don’t know whether we should be engaged in this “monumental…task”. I don’t think it is sufficient though, to ask yourselves the first two questions without asking at least some of the rest. I know there are men and women who read this website and know and think much more about this than I do. I am very curious to know how servicemen and servicewomen conceive of victory, or of what would constitute the success of their mission as individual soldiers in a particular locality, and as members of the armed forces engaged in a global conflict.

Comment #87 - Posted by: Prole at October 7, 2008 10:45 AM

Mad Marty comment 2,

Should I get a speed rope or will a leather rope due for double unders?

If the rope (not the handles) is heavy enough to get two revolutions under your body while your feet are in the air, the rope will work just fine. I have found that a five dollar plastic rope works and so does leather and so does every rope that is sufficiently heavy enough to keep the momentum.

Having said that, I eventually got fed up with ropes getting tangled because of the handle, ropes breaking, etcetera, so I bought a Buddy Lee rope which I am happy with but I am sure that it will eventually break as well.

Have Fun, Train Hard,


Comment #88 - Posted by: Billy at October 7, 2008 10:57 AM

Comment #61 - Posted by: Barry Cooper
"There is always a top dog. If there isn't, there is chronic low level warfare. This is historical fact."

It is also historical fact that where a top dog exists, there is always dissatisfaction by certain segments of the population being ruled. This, more often than not, leads to revolt & rebellion. 18th century America is a good example.

In my opinion, just because something is a historical fact, does not mean it needs to be so forever more. There is another way. Some parts of the world have figured out how to live peacefully without destroying diversity - Western Europe, Canada. I'd like to hope that we could use this paradigm to spread peace, rather than have a top dog pile sandbags upon sandbags, fostering growing resentment that inevitably leads to explosion.

But perhaps my optimism goes too far. Can rational thought triumph over human nature?

Comment #89 - Posted by: Reto at October 7, 2008 11:14 AM

This is my first week doing CF and I just discovered CFE. I plan on doing a TT later today, but can't figure out exactly what the CFE running drills are as a part of the warm-up. Can anyone explain them?

Comment #90 - Posted by: BF at October 7, 2008 11:19 AM

1 Rep Max pull ups Rx'd:

205lb body weight plus 90lbs hanging from my waist.(failed on 100)

Sunday's Olympic lifts 5 rounds for time subbed 115 on all lifts. 24:00

Ever since the "virtual shoveling" my low back has been really sensitive and in fact is sore after pretty much every WOD. Any advice?

Comment #91 - Posted by: Adam 24/5'11/205 at October 7, 2008 11:22 AM

#89: the point is that if the guarantor of peace is an autocratic regime, things get much worse. Picture a Nazi victory in WW2, or a bloodless Soviet coup in Western Europe in a world where Jimmy Carter got reelected.

I want peace as much as anyone, but as long as we have fascist states like China out there, and would-be imperialist like the Russians, we need to be strong militarily, and we need to remember--listen carefully here--NOT EVERYONE TELLS THE TRUTH.


I am simply pointing to a habit--which I have seen literally hundreds and hundreds of times--of conflating criticism of Bush's policy with an actual policy prescription. If people have a problem with a policy, they need to offer an alternative.

For example, for a long time the goal of the left with respect to the Iraq War was to leave, since it was "unwinnable". This is a logical outflow of the belief that if a given policy is bad, the reverse must be good. Extending this, logically, if everything America does in terms of projecting power is bad, then contraction must be good. We have seen that PRECISE sentiment on this very board on this very day.

I don't shoot from the hip very often. I've been doing this day in day out--here and elsewhere--for a very long time. I am very good at pattern recognition, and capable of extrapolating generalities from a large mass of unconstricted and unconstructed specifics.

On an unrelated note, the thought occurred to me at lunch that the timing of this fiscal crisis may not have been accidental. Nobody wants to talk about this, but the precipitating factor in the crash was the sudden inability of these investment banks to sell their securities in the amounts that were needed to, in effect, make their payrolls.

Much of this money comes from overseas, particular China and the Middle East. Who do you think those nations want to win this election? Who benefits more from a sudden financial crisis in which the would-be newcomer is tying his challenger to the current Administration?

Would it take more than a couple of telephone calls to the right people to engineer a freeze like this? Keep in mind, in this regard, that the Chinese GOVERNMENT is itself effectively an investment bank. The bank, the military, and the foreign policy team all report to the same junta.

Given how much panic we are already seeing, I can understand why nobody would want to talk about this, but the reality is we have never had a problem talking negatives where Bush was concerned. Perhaps we need to use our freedom of speech to try and accomplish something useful for once.

I won't hold my breath.

Comment #92 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 7, 2008 11:25 AM

#70, if the war is not about human rights or weapons of mass destruction, what do you think its about? and i said 'kill' not 'murder' but thats just being pedantic. The point was that noone asked america to invade Iraq, the Bush administration chose too. Im not saying i know why, but i think thats how it was. The UN didnt pass a resolution supporting the action, and many other countries condemed the action.
World war 2 was not about human rights one bit! Im not saying that war is always wrong, there are sometimes no other options, but on the other hand when America starts infringing on the soveriegnty of any nation which annoys it, thats not a just war. Generally, A JUST WAR IS A WAR IN WHICH THE COST OF NOT FIGHTING IS HIGHER THAN THE COST OF FIGHTING. Is this the case in Iraq, or afghanistan?? I think not. Attacking afghanistan is like bombing scicily to get rid of the mafia.
Someone told me to go 'join the peace core' if i dont want to fight for america. im welsh so no i dont, but im not an america hater, and i have nothing but respect for the army. Questioning america's actions should be encouraged surely, in a country that prides itself on freedom of thought and expression? also, comparing mugabe and chavez... one is elected, the other is a dictator. Just because chavez is left wing you dont have to automatically hate him, and certainly not think of him on the same level of a man who has ruined his country and killed thousands...

Comment #93 - Posted by: Tom-19-70k-5'11'' at October 7, 2008 11:29 AM

on a lighter note, i redid the dl pc fs pj wod, 3 rounds at 40k in 13.26, which is a step in the right direction. I listened to the 'inches' speach from any given sunday to psych myself up, worked wonders :)

Comment #94 - Posted by: Tom-19-70k-5'11'' at October 7, 2008 11:32 AM

I remember sitting in a bar in New York once having a great time. That is, until someone asked me for money for "The struggle"

On telling him to shove his collection, the mood turned rather ugly.

Can someone please explain to me why "the troubles" were in effect supported by many US citizens, despite them being terrorism directed against one of America's oldest allies, but you now expect the whole world to rally to your "War on Terror" ?

Comment #95 - Posted by: GC at October 7, 2008 11:32 AM

Barry, my reading of your post is that you are loosely postulating that the Chinese and Saudi governments have chosen to destabilize their and the US markets and significantly drive down the cost of the product that they monopolize in order to help a less interventionist presidential candidate get elected? In addition you mention that this could be done simply by making a few phone calls. How would those calls go, I wonder? Though I hesitate to impugn your ability to see patterns in the ivy, the idea seems preposterous to me. Perhaps, just perhaps, Obama's current lead is due to some other factor, such as the overwhelming support minorities, young people, military families, and the middle-soon-to-be-lower class.

Comment #96 - Posted by: Ben Edelen at October 7, 2008 11:38 AM

Ok, I have not said anything in a while on a rest day so here are my two cents on the article and the folks who are posting today.

The article, in my opinion, correctly identifies the root cause of terrorism, as well as the only way to solve the problem of terrorism.

The US Military is the wrong tool to solve the underlying cause terrorism but it is the right tool to use against nations that endorse terrorism. This is an important point and it should not matter which side of the ideological divide you stand on. Dis-agreement on this point means that you are missing one portion of the terrorism issue.

Stating who started the fight, who funded who, which government did what, is completely irrelevant to solving the problem of terrorism.

It is only when state sponsors of terrorism stop endorsing Wahhabi-ism in all its forms and export a more rational, open form of Islam that this form of terrorism will cease to exist.

The devil, of course, is in the details of how to make this happen. Both diplomacy and the use of the military are important and the entire world, must bring both of these tools to bear in order to succeed. This process will take generations to accomplish and any thoughts to the contrary are both short-sighted and naive.

We will not even begin to have any long term effect on terrorism until we correctly identify its root cause, Wahhabi-ism, and we are able to co-opt the entire Non-Wahhabi World, in bringing both diplomatic and military tools to control and then eliminate this hateful form of human repression. Until then, The United States will be left to fight the expressions of Wahhabi-ism but we will be unable to stop it.

Have Fun, Think Hard,


Comment #97 - Posted by: Billy at October 7, 2008 11:40 AM

#95 the difference is perspective. Some Americans saw the IRA as being freedom fighters, fighting the good fight etc, but when its US citizens under attack, the perpetrators are terrorists. When someone is attacking someone else, its easier to be sympatheic to their cause than if they are attacking you.

Comment #98 - Posted by: Tom M/19/70k/ 5'11 at October 7, 2008 11:43 AM

#93 please expand on this idea "A JUST WAR IS A WAR IN WHICH THE COST OF NOT FIGHTING IS HIGHER THAN THE COST OF FIGHTING" how do you measure the cost? Not just in euros I hope?

Comment #99 - Posted by: a roden M\40\6'\270 at October 7, 2008 11:45 AM

Russ Escondido, comment 17,

What temp do I heat PVC pipe for use as home-made rings?

Russ, here is a great thread with instructions, cooking times and temps :>) good luck and keep an eye on it wile its in the oven :>)


Have Fun, Train Hard,


Comment #100 - Posted by: Billy at October 7, 2008 11:46 AM

Anybody interested in doing a 100-day pullup challenge?


Comment #101 - Posted by: Keith W. at October 7, 2008 11:49 AM

Did weighted pullups today. Started with 25 and went up by 10's using a couple of back packs. Got up to 85# (PR)

Going to "run" up Mt Doug here in Victoria in about an hour. Should be interesting if nothing else.

Comment #102 - Posted by: JC Veggie at October 7, 2008 11:50 AM

Mike, Comment 28,

Sunday killed my wrists, any advice?

I know how you feel brotha man, when I first started I could not even get into a good rack position because of a wrist injury and I put wrist exercises into my warm up and whenever I did push ups I would rotate my hands around to make sure that I was really pushing to make my wrists more flexible. Handstands also help with wrist flexibility. Eventually, you will gain the flexibility, don't over do it, a little often is better than a lot at once when it comes to increasing flexibility.

Have Fun, Train Hard,


Comment #103 - Posted by: Billy at October 7, 2008 11:54 AM

You know what I really dislike about Rest Day Discussions? By the time I read the article, somebody else has said what I want to say--and done it better. But, this time, I'll take a shot.

Despite what we may desire, believe or wish--war , especially this war, is not going away. Aggression against "others" (anybody who isn't "us")is part of the human condition, and will remain so.

As long as man exists, someone will try to impose their beliefs, desires or rules on others, and conflict will occur. We currently have the same choice man has always had--fight or die! WE wre attacked, and have taken the attackers to task. It's not nearly over, but we've made a good start.

As for the Middle East, allow me to share a common, and much-heard saying from that area, "Me against my brother; me and my brother against my cousin; me, my brother and my cousin against the world." Does that sound like a plea for peace and understanding?

As for the question of whether our military is up to the task--that depends on whether you're taliking about the guys on the ground or the "Commander-in-Chief" and his political appointees. The grunts are able, the question is, are the politicians willing?

Yes, been there, done that. More importantly, my son has completed two tours each in Afganistan and Iraq--and agrees with my analysis. To know the facts and to think otherwise is plain foolish.

De Oppresso Liber!

Comment #104 - Posted by: peejay2 at October 7, 2008 11:57 AM

Catching up a bit. Did the pull-ups first -

40, 50, 55, 60, 65, 65, 75

Then went for the barbell workout. Did three rounds in 14:38 (slower pace than my PB) and was gassed.

Looking to get back on track tomorrow. Nice to work out all that beer I drank this weekend. Someday I won't have to write that last line.

Comment #105 - Posted by: tom_boston at October 7, 2008 11:59 AM

#95 the difference is perspective. Some Americans saw the IRA as being freedom fighters, fighting the good fight etc, but when its US citizens under attack, the perpetrators are terrorists. When someone is attacking someone else, its easier to be sympatheic to their cause than if they are attacking you.

Comment #106 - Posted by: Tom M/19/70k/ 5'11 at October 7, 2008 12:07 PM

Tom Comment 98, you wrote:

"The difference between terrorists and freedom fighters is perspective"

I must vehemently disagree with your comment.

If you intentionally attack civilians in order to destabilize a government or promote a cause, you are a terrorist.

If you attack military combatants with an armed militia, you are a freedom fighter.

The unintended killing of civilians is an inevitable, tragic part of war, but that, by no means, makes the fighting force that did it a terrorist group.

This is a pet peeve of mine, when I hear that the Americans who fought the Revolutionary War would be considered terrorists, because of the point of view, it upsets me greatly. No, if Americans during the Revolutionary War went to England and killed civilians at the market, they would be terrorists.

Have Fun, Think Hard,


Comment #107 - Posted by: Billy at October 7, 2008 12:09 PM

It's an interesting article and many of you have posted some great insights into the issues surronding the Global War on Terror.

Comment 9:

That had to be trolling. You can't just Drop a comment like that without backing it up. Are you talking about being Stragetically ready? Logistically ready? Morally ready? If youd did your research you could probably make arguements for the two former but NEVER the latter and I think that's why your glib comments enraged so many on this site, however to them I would say, "Your F'ing Stupid" is not the most compelling way to win an arguement.

I think from now on whenever we have a super controversal or political topic I'm just gonna qoute a line of poetry or line from a book and let you figure out how the qoute relates to the article.

In Flanders Fields
By: Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, MD (1872-1918) Canadian Army

IN FLANDERS FIELDS the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields

Comment #108 - Posted by: Charlatan 0 at October 7, 2008 12:36 PM

I am new to Crossfit and I love it. I am a little unclear, however, if the WOD is the only activity for each day. Aside from a 5 minute warm up and cool down, is there anything else? Some of the awesome results I see on the website seem hard to believe with just 15-20 minutes a day.

Comment #109 - Posted by: josh M at October 7, 2008 12:43 PM

I can't even comprehend the ignorace of your comment, Tom #98. How can you even compare the two? I agree 100% with Billy.

Please do us all a favor and educate yourself before making another post. Thanks to these "freedom fighters" you, TOM, are able to sleep sound in your bed at night.


Comment #110 - Posted by: Murph.C at October 7, 2008 12:43 PM

I like turtles.

Comment #111 - Posted by: Jason Skeens at October 7, 2008 1:00 PM

Good luck defeating an ideology. Because it works that way.

Comment #112 - Posted by: Austin at October 7, 2008 1:00 PM

billy, i can see your point. But does that make the bombing of dresden in world war 2 a terrorist act? What about killing native americans during the 19th century? or bombs that miss in iraq and kill civilians? I dont think killing civilians is justifiable as a freedom fighter, im not saying alquedia is has a point or anything. And to the person who said im ignorant and need an education, yeah i am and yeah i do, and i accept that, its not an insult

Comment #113 - Posted by: Tom M/19/70k/ 5'11 at October 7, 2008 1:22 PM

Without too much political commentary the article raised some excellent points.

1. This war is not a traditional war fought by armies representing countries.
2. Obama is playing to peoples ignorance of this entire issue of terrorism by saying the "War ends in Afghanistan".

That is a pleasant thought, but hardly reality. He wants people to believe we "win" in Afghanistan and then everything is a-ok and we can go back to holding hands and singing "peace on earth" and let our military get back to doing important things like "peacekeeping" in impoverished nations such as Darfur.

Democrats views of terrorism have traditionally been soft and well...liberal. Viewing them more as criminals rather than what they truly are (look at the 8 years of the Clinton Administrations effect)...cancerous thugs that need to be eliminated, not incarcerated.

#28 Post by Joe is a nice summary and a history lesson for us all that this will not stop until our true resolve as a country is felt in response to these atrocities and twisted ideals of Islamic Terrorism/Jihad.

These terrorism sponsoring nation states will not stop until they have "no ground for cover". The shake up in Iraq is a wake up call for these "thugs". It would be nice to see other countries with as strong a resolve to help. But, unfortunately many (European countries) are long on talk and short on action. The liberal nations of Europe loved having the "Obama palooza Tour" come to town. Finally, a liberal American willing to roll over on Democracy, wipe his ass with the Constitution and accept the ideals of a one world government. Heck he even still believes the fight on terrorism starts and ends in Afghanistan.

The libs are still baffled at how close the polls show McCain to Obama even though their are so many problems with the current Bush admin.

Perhaps people in the "Red" states are not such "stupid red necks" as the liberal media, Hollywood and snotty Europeans would have you believe.

Perhaps our resolve as a country is strong and we will persevere on the War on Terrorism by voting accordingly.

When push comes to shove how many Americans are truly willing to die for their beliefs and ideals? Politicians? Liberal elites in Hollywood? No! Our men and women in the armed services are ready and willing to place their lives on the line for our freedoms. And even the freedoms of other nations, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Our vote in November is a vote for who leads this country and this countries military and who leads this country to a brighter future. Hopefully, the vote does not go to waste on someone who professes the War on Terror starts and ends in Afghanistan to placate the masses.

Comment #114 - Posted by: Dr D at October 7, 2008 1:26 PM

Is someone going to be recording the "round table" streaming radio event so those of us not fortunate enough to hear if live can listen later? ... Please?

Comment #115 - Posted by: Gavin at October 7, 2008 1:46 PM

as rxd

24 hours

Comment #116 - Posted by: Pete - Decatur, GA at October 7, 2008 1:47 PM

As soon as i get my degree in the spring, i plan on joining the navy with the ultimate goal of being a SEAL, and i think crossfit(and alot of very cold showers) is the best way to prepare for the program. I cant wait to do my part.

If anyone wants to see an interesting and heart-breaking video on the Afghan situation, check out the Nat Geo special Inside the Green Berets. its on youtube.

Comment #117 - Posted by: Brent at October 7, 2008 1:47 PM

#109 Josh M

If Crossfit had a nickel for every newbie that used the word "Just" or "That's All!" when referring to the WOD... well, Coach could fix the economic crisis himself with all those nickel's. LOL

Do what you can to keep up 3 days on and 1 day off. Get to an affiliate as much as possible (learn form/technique), substitute and scale only as absolutely needed. Ask questions here only after exhausting the resources available on this web site.

Crossfit IS NOT one WOD, as many vets here would attest. Crossfit is not even doing it for a few weeks/months and then saying "yah I did that stuff, it don't work." or "It's too dangerous" (In my best "wimpy" voice impersonation of an uninitiated, over "edge-u-cated", blowhard, globo gym, know-it-all-from-books, muscle head trainer)

Crossfit is a mental and physical (and arguably spiritual) discipline of continued pursuit for peak performance with all aspects in the survival of life.

Understanding is not in the "thinking" it is only in the doing young padawan. Now do "Murph" for using the word "Just" too close to the WOD. LOL

Seriously though...

Good luck Josh M

and welcome to crossfit.

Comment #118 - Posted by: Dr D at October 7, 2008 1:50 PM

I'll bet we can all agree...
Neither Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin are up to the task of serving this country as it requires, in it's current state.

Saddest election I have ever seen

Comment #119 - Posted by: bill m/49/72"/212 at October 7, 2008 1:55 PM

#28 Mike

Don't think your missing anything. You may have a bit of bruising over the sternum at the base of the neck too. Everyone's wrists and low backs are sore after Saturday's WOD.

I misread this WOD and did 21 reps DL's and 15 hang cleans. My grip was toast before the end of the third round. Punishment for my own misread.

Stretch the forearms well, perhaps some ice packs, hydrate with plenty of H2O and work on the form/technique.

Comment #120 - Posted by: Dr D at October 7, 2008 2:01 PM

Dale: (and Barry). I appreciate your posts but have different opinions.

damn, wrote a post and my internet failed. Here it goes again...

Dale, I understand what you´re saying, but dont see the need of reserting to name-calling.

I´m from Sweden and I like America, beautiful country (I saw California, Oregon, a bit of Washington, NY and Philadelphia) and I met many ppl there who were friendly and showed great hospitality.

But I dont understand this, as I see it, ´culture of war´. And the general idea that those who not like war is foolish, anti-amercian, defaitist, flag-burners, probably gay and definetly a pussy/coward. That is the language several here use, and that of the likes of Fox News (many viewers, right?) Is it not possible to make a consious choice that is different from yours?

My fear is that things wont be any better in those countries even the day that american troops do leave, be it next year or 2018. You spoke of the horrors in Vietnam post-war. Which was exactly my point. English is my second language so please overlook any errors in the communication.

Now I HOPE you are right, that the efforts made will have a positive effect.
But I am afraid that american troops and bullets will create more terrorists than the numbers put in jail or killed. And that extremists and anti-western ppl will rule those countries short after US troops leave.

And respect to those who fight because they believe in something. I would fight if I believed. But currently I dont have that faith in the american leadership. (Note: Not the people doing the fighting. 2 different things)

If you can, please make me believe.

Someone said ppl with my opinion lack an alternative: Well I´ll try my best to give my opinion: Ppl in western countries eventually came to the conclusion that some sort of people-rule is better than some form of dictator-rule. I believe other countries also will come to this conclusion themselves, just like european monarchies died out 100-200 years ago. And this happend wihtout the information technology that exist today, but still ppl were informed and made a conscious choice: We want a change! When that happens, things can and will change. (No rule, army or government can permanently remain in control if a large majority of the population is against it) It seems now that the political situation in named countries has not changed enought to make this permanent change. Thats why I also think there is a chance this war will have been fought in vain.
If this change comes too soon, by interference of other forces (like US) chances are that the reaction will the opposite of the desired one. Like forcing a child to eat vegetables... it will only more stubbornly hold on to their cookies.

"Well that change requires a revolution, war and fighting" someone might say. Well, not a bullet fired in Sweden when that change took place. Just an example that peaceful ways can work too.

Please note that I tried to keep a friendly tone and keep discussion civil. Have a good day

P.S. Crossfit rules

Comment #121 - Posted by: Peter at October 7, 2008 2:41 PM

A friend sent this to me - a video of an Army soldier being greeted by his dogs after 14 months in Iraq.


Got something in my eye...

Comment #122 - Posted by: richie at October 7, 2008 2:50 PM

Lots of liberal bile on here today.

My son is currently in the delayed entry program for the USMC and has been eager to serve his country since he was about 10 years of age.

He has been taught to respect personal freedom and eagerly accept personal responsibility.

He is pained at seeing the 'anti-american' movement that is being spued forth by the leftist community. (ala- Steve, Sam F and Tom J...)

My Father served as a US Marine and then later as a reservist.

My life has taken a fiffernt path but
for you- "Comment #35 - Posted by: SheepDawg007" to say I/we should 'Back up bravado with deeds' lets turn that back to you( since you liberals like to always offer up the other side's point of view). When is the last time you tried to negotiate with a Muslim Extremest Terrorist? Are you out living a life that would better suit thier liking?-Wouldn't want to offend them!

It is difficult for me to comprehend how so many in this country have been raised to completely abandon all respect for thier fellow countrymen and the principles of God given human rights and freedoms. To defend terrorists and put forth the notion that we (Americans) are just terrorists from a different point of view is the most disgusting example of ignorance I can emagine.

If you are not proud to be an American then why are you here? Is there somewhere else you can point to that is a better example to follow in any regard- government, society, economy? (If you can then please go there!) There are thousands of people crowding our borders every day from around the globe, trying to get in to our country, yearning for freedom. I don't see thousands of people everyday trying like hell to escape the tyrany of an Amercan government.

So, I'm not very articulate- I'm glad there are some on here who are and can make my point for me better than I can but I'll just say for me-
I love America! I'm proud to be an American!

I challenge anyone who cares about the future of this nation to read a little book called The Law by Louise Bastiate (sp?)

Comment #123 - Posted by: PXT Cody 6'/195/33/M at October 7, 2008 2:58 PM

#119 Bill

Totally agree with you. This year is like picking the "worser of two weavel's". McCain is too old to be coherent and in touch. He'll be 76 years old at the end of a considered first term and what?...80 years old at the end of a second term. C'mon, most people are considering taking away the driving privledges of seniors this old deemed incapable of driving (nothing against seniors who are coherent and capable), let alone the stress of running a country.

Default to Palin. I like her just becuase I can't stand Hilary and it frustrates the hell of ol' "Iron heart". But, Palin doesn't have the experience, so what neither did Bush. I like her bravado, she could definitely kick Hillary's a** in a "cage match".

Obama...what ever, nuff said in the prior post. Biden is all about the Democratic Party and more and bigger governement.

It is a sad commentary when the best politicians were fielding for elections are recycled, too old, too unfit, too political, etc. I think the appropriate phrase is...this country is going to he*l in a handbasket.

I miss the Reagan days. At least we had an enemy we could easily identify, a leader who inspired and an economy worth saving. As if this "bail out" is going to do anything but fill the coffers of those Wall Street greaseballs. At least the 86' S&L "bail out" gave us taxpayers actual real estate as collateral not just a bunch of paper and empty promises.

Comment #124 - Posted by: Dr D at October 7, 2008 3:18 PM



155# deadlift
chest to bar pull-ups


pre: wux2
post: handstand walks

Comment #125 - Posted by: nadia shatila at October 7, 2008 3:49 PM

Wasn't Reagan 70 years old when he took office?
And McCain will be 72 if he was elected. So what's the big issue?

Comment #126 - Posted by: trace at October 7, 2008 3:58 PM

Hey Richie #122:

Thanks, Brother.

Comment #127 - Posted by: bingo at October 7, 2008 4:28 PM

How quickly will that Radio show be up as a podcast? I have a meeting at 8pm Eastern Time, and might miss part of it!

Comment #128 - Posted by: Justin Lascek at October 7, 2008 4:35 PM

I know this is off topic and I am sorry. I was wondering if anyone know where I can find the book about "murphs" story. If anyone knows will you please leave a post since I have been unsuccessful in my attempts thus far.

Comment #129 - Posted by: Darryl at October 7, 2008 4:46 PM

Felt I needed some cardio....did about 4 miles....

Comment #130 - Posted by: Soulsurfer at October 7, 2008 5:18 PM

dear crossfit family,
i broke my leg a few weeks back and got in the gym for my first crossfit since then today. gotta say, it felt good to be back there, and even though i'm being ginger on the leg, i'm up to the challenge of building back up.
here's to a great hockey season and crossfitting my brains out.

3-2-1- go!!!

Comment #131 - Posted by: brian at October 7, 2008 5:23 PM

I hope everyone is listening to CrossFit Radio.

Comment #132 - Posted by: AllisonNYC_23/5'2/perfect at October 7, 2008 5:24 PM

Wow, the talk about a great video. I love learning new teaching techniques, especially with children. Thanks for sharing!

Comment #133 - Posted by: James Humphrey, Jr. at October 7, 2008 5:49 PM

Just finished listening to the CF Radio podcast (Which I have broadcasting through the gym speakers). Not only was the line up first class, but they answered the detractors, no punches were pulled and nothing was said that couldn't be backed up by measurable results. Personally I have been harsh lately on some of the affiliate videos and the virtuosity of the movements, but Coach made a fantastic point with his violin player comparison... that hit home and I feel like I will grow as a trainer because of it. Andy your rebuttals were classic and true to form. Great stuff all of you, looking forward to the next show!!!

Comment #134 - Posted by: Jamie@CFA at October 7, 2008 6:18 PM

#130 darryl

Lone Survivor is the book you are looking for

Comment #135 - Posted by: Lee at October 7, 2008 6:24 PM

"I know this is off topic and I am sorry. I was wondering if anyone know where I can find the book about "murphs" story"
--Lone Survivor

Comment #136 - Posted by: Apolloswabbie 6'2" 205 44 yoa at October 7, 2008 6:35 PM

Great Pic today!

345 x 3
370 x 3
380 x 3
315 x 12

5 rounds
500 M row
5 Overhead squats, 115#
10 Dumbbell snatches, 50#
15 Pull ups

I still row terribly.

5 x 100 M sprint

Comment #137 - Posted by: Jeff at October 7, 2008 6:37 PM

My 18 month-old son was watching me do my warm-up yesterday, when I noticed him out of the corner of my eye doing a perfect squat the way only little ones can. Praised him, and asked him to show Mommy another squat. He did! High five! A born Crossfitter. Now it's a game in the house, and everyone gets a high-five for a good squat.

Comment #138 - Posted by: WahooCat at October 7, 2008 6:46 PM

Peter - it's not name-calling (really) - I'm identifying a common theme of thought that I find utterly illogical. I'm not saying I like war; I've fought in one and some other brush fires since being commissioned in 1991.

What I cannot tolerate (or go without pointing out the flaws) is the nonsense that passes for "debate" or "discussion". One thing I loved about CF when I first started hanging here in late Oct 2005 was the rigorous (and generally friendly) discussions, as long as someone had at least a basic understanding of what they were saying or was willing to profess their ignorance and be educated. What drives me batty is people spewing slogans and passing that off as intelligent discourse. It's like walking into a class on nuclear physics when you haven't yet had, say, an algebra course and telling people why they're all jacked up and don't know what they're doing and they can't solve the riddles of the universe anyway because they're unsolvable. "Oh, okay, thank for that contribution. Now go away and let the adults talk."

To return to your point, Peter - I've pointed out in detail (albeit stridently) where someone has spewed utter nonsense. I have heard no logical refutation of that proof. I didn't bring up those memes - but I won't allow them to stand unchallenged.

Peter - I agree that Prole is at least asking some of the right questions. His responses are reasoned and intelligent even if I sometimes disagree. There are matters about which "reasonable men may differ", but the reasons for differing are important. If you say "I disagree with you about the War on Terror because GEORGE-BUSH-LIED-THOUSANDS-DIED-IRAQ-STEALING-OIL-AMERICA-IS-IMPERIALIST" then you are a fool. If you say you disagree on principled, well-articulated facts and conclusions, then we can at least have a discussion.

The problem here Peter is that people want to express their "feelings" about the War on Terror, rather than their opinions - which are based upon fact and reason. They want to emote and spew vitriol and bumper sticker slogans with no understanding of (or care for) facts and reason.

You can certainly come to this Board and say that stuff, but I (or someone else) may just as freely point out the inadequacies of that kind of noise.

You seem like a nice chap, Peter, even if a bit historically misinformed about how democracy came to Europe. You also seem to posit this same fallacy that we should just live and let live and when the Arab/Middle Eastern nations are of a mind, they'll find democracy. That would be fine if people weren't blowing up planes over Scotland, or working on WMD in camps in Afghanistan (Kaldan), flying planes into US buildings, or bombing US warships.

I don't have the patience to wait for "them" to "find democracy" while they continue to slaughter innocents. Which brings us back to Prole's questions, which I answer below.

1. Unquestionably.
2. It's a necessity, not an optional kind of thing. Unless you like dying. That may seem dramatic, but wait until the bomb goes off in the mall near you. The bad guys are not merely hanging out drinking chai in the FATA. They are looking for any opportunity to make the next big boom. Let's not forget that the 9-11 boys were part of a cell in Hamburg, Germany, either.
3. This is an interesting philosophical, and practical, question. The cost will depend largely on some of your other questions, namely what is the satisfactory end state?
4. No, that's ridiculous. But we need to make the cost of attacking us prohibitive so that those calculating such action, both practically and politically, will find it unpalatable.
5. I'll take part "yes", here, Alex. There may be some acceptable level of nonsense that will always exist - think the random hijackings during the 70's. Not great, but typically not fatal in great numbers.
6. No, that level of terrorism bred the current levels. We were seen as a paper tiger (which we were) incapable of responding "in kind". It needs to be much, much lower, so that embassies in Yemen (for example) are not being attacked with impunity.
7. Since I answered no, this question is moot, but would guess that we'll need to modulate our level of action in response to the changing of both the threat and the political/religious ideologies that fuel it.
8. I would guess a serious blow to AQ's leadership. While mostly symbolic now, Bin Laden, Zawahiri, and one or two others brought low in the public eye would be a tremendous blow and go a long way toward ratcheting things down. Additionally, the emergence of a charismatic, credible, well-regarded, moderate Muslim leader who would repeatedly disavow the culture of death and radical jihadism would be a huge, huge boon.
9. We have our own political realities (including the defeatists who raise their heads here and elsewhere) as well as economic realities. We have other commitments militarily and politically (like in Pakistan, for example) that are constantly shifting and changing this calculus.

How's that for starters.

Comment #139 - Posted by: Dale_Saran at October 7, 2008 7:25 PM

Good to have you back, Dale.

Comment #140 - Posted by: bingo at October 7, 2008 7:42 PM

Barry - #62 - made it worth reading all the leftist surrender monkey tripe. Thanks.

Kate - glad to see your comments, thanks for the rower report, I hope your climb will continue, glad to have your comments when you can.

Dale, as I read your posts, I was reminded of the old saw "if you wrestle with a pig, you both get muddy but the pigs don't care."

The video from TED by Jonathan Haight on the Moral Mind addresses almost all of the comments on this page. Some of you already know what he says and some would recognize it immediately if you saw it - I recommend it to all. Relates well to what Barry has termed perceptual breathing. No one's immune from tribal mindedness, therefore all can benefit from stepping out of the moral matrix from time to time to see if you can get better clarity before you jump back into the fray.


Comment #141 - Posted by: Apolloswabbie 6'2" 205 44 yoa at October 7, 2008 7:59 PM

Prole #88,

Q&A time:

1. is it the War on Terror worth winning?


2. if so, why?

Terrorism is a tactic, not a strategy. The strategy of the terrorists is to expand their sphere of influence, domestically through sharia, and internationally through capture of territory, especially with nuclear weapons. The tactic and strategy are hideous and offenses to humanity as much as genocide was and is.

3. at what cost? 

The War on Terror only costs money and priceless lives. The two can’t be mixed into a single metric. The trade-off is positive, however, on both counts. It costs less money and saves lives to prosecute the War.

4. must we send our citizens to fight until the last terrorist or would-be terrorist is dead?

No, just until the last terrorist leader is dead.

5. if not, is there some level of terrorism, at home and abroad that is tolerable, in the sense of not requiring massive foreign intervention and greater concentrations of state power at home? 

No level of terrorism at home is acceptable, and the level abroad depends on the target, and is proportional to our ability to defeat it and exact a penalty against its promoters. Massive foreign intervention, for example as in WWI or WWII is neither contemplated nor necessary. Our present level of involvement is a small fraction of those efforts. Massive intervention would actually be counterproductive considering the kind of warfare we can now wage.

Nor is greater concentrations of state power in the cards beyond plugging obvious holes. A fine example of a hole needing a plug is the sharing of information between agencies and certain corporations. Another is profiling. Another is providing a sanctuary for terrorists because it is disguised as a religion.

6. if that level exists, would it be similar to that of the 1980-90’s – i.e., USS Cole, Nairobi, Atlanta Olympic Games, Oklahoma City, Lockerbie, Beirut, West Berlin, Air India and particularly the years 1983-86 see: http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/chronology.html

Some domestic acts of terrorism could be treated as criminal acts, but are nonetheless unacceptable. These require links to the perpetrators provable beyond a reasonable doubt. Those linked to foreign agents, equally unacceptable, can be met with retaliation and punishment, at the president’s option, in the form of the taking of things the enemy values highly – especially land and leaders’ lives.

7. if that earlier level of terrorism is tolerable, is it more or less desirable in light of the cost of the alternatives – a War on Terror “of monumental” size and unforeseeable cost?

While the hypothesis to the question is not satisfied, the answer is that cost is no constraint. What counts is efficiency is exacting the penalties – excellent troop survivability, low collateral damage.

8. what would it take to return the world to that earlier level of terrorism? 


9. what are our competing priorities? How do these, if they exist, change the answers to any or all of the questions above?

Terrorists are heading toward nuclear capabilities and an attack on Israel -- first. The word unacceptable is tossed around a lot, but here is the place to take it literally. Terrorist inroads are grave in North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan. This threat cannot be allowed to materialize, and no existing or probable priority is higher.

Comment #142 - Posted by: Jeff Glassman at October 7, 2008 8:49 PM

#127 I believe Reagan was 69 when taking office. I'm a bit more concerned about McCain's age though.

#144 if we apply your rule: logic would dictate those with the lowest Fran times, hence fittest, are allowed the least amount of time to discourse here. LOL
Perhaps we let people post based on their Crossfit Total scores. Each pound equals one letter. LOL

#140 Dale I believe your "spot on" chap. Perhaps we should consider liberalism a mental disorder in the DSM-III (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)and deal with it accordingly. LOL

Comment #143 - Posted by: Dr D at October 7, 2008 10:26 PM


If I were to keep up the pretence of keeping it civil, I would not choose to name other ppls posts as "noise", "foolish" etc.

However I do actually understand your point of view. If I had fought in a war and risked my life, I would probably not appreciate if someone suggested it was in vain.

But solving this issue, or requiring a "solution" from ppl that are not big fans of this war, is a little like I would chop off my leg with an axe and then ask you to fix it. Now, I do not think there even IS a good solution, only bad and worse alternatives.

Of course, I do not in any way respect, honor or defend terrorist acts.

About killing ideologies: Just last weeks over 40 % in Austria (Hitlers native cuntry) voted for nationalist/racist parties. Even worse was the election results in Serbia, which were bombed by Nato in -94 (I think). Seems it did not change the mind of the people.
Same ideas in different packages, so I stand firm on that point.

My description about european democracy was extremely simplified and shortened, I just named an example. But I believe I do know the background rather well.

About people expressing emotions. I dont believe there are actual points of view or opinions without emotions. And whats logic to you seems totally irrelevant and stupid to me (Note: I do not think you are stupid, merely your opinions seem that to me)

I know you and serveral other ppl regard my and other opinions as irrelevant and falsified since we have not served in the war ourselves. You have that right. I believe otherwise, this is why negotiators are brought in to make peace. The two sides are most often to closely up involved personally.

Now, my grandfather died last night so I dont have strength or will to continue this. I hope the war will end soon (I hope with all my heart that you ARE right, that terrorist acts will stop and that ppl of these countries will be free), then we can spend money on stop world hunger, cancer, the spreading of deserts or other things.

Good luck in training

Comment #144 - Posted by: Peter at October 8, 2008 12:36 AM

Just one short add: I do not (actually) regard your opinions as "stupid", I just don´t agree and some opinions and interpretations seem a bit strange to me.

Comment #145 - Posted by: Peter at October 8, 2008 1:01 AM

Thanks Nicole D!

Comment #146 - Posted by: Paul M at October 8, 2008 3:05 AM

Hey Kate! I almost missed you. Chin up...lots of folks still cheerin' for ya!

Comment #147 - Posted by: bingo at October 8, 2008 4:12 AM


I am sorry to hear about your grandmother. At the same time, I feel like I need to respond.

The spread of racist parties will continue as Europeans collectively fail to understand that if you want to survive as a people you have to 1) give birth to roughly as many kids as you have people; and 2) value your own culture sufficiently that you don't allow it to be subverted from within by Muslims who want to implement sharia in the home of the Enlightenment.

I will add that Sweden--a former Empire, as you likely know--has been able to develop into a "peace-loving" nation under the aegis of American troops. We saved you from Hitler (for whom you provided raw supplies for a non-aggression pact--steel and coal was it not?), and we saved you from the Soviet fascists as well.

Nobody feared then, or will fear again Swedish force of arms. I've heard good things about the Norwegian Jaegers, and you likely have something comparable, but as an overall force, it is irrelevant from every angle, except a possible invasion by Denmark or Finland.

To turn the world over to the hope of peace by unilaterally disarming would--based on any accurate assessment both of current realities and historical fact--be to choose cowardice, war, and eventual subjugation by a less scrupulous power.

Comment #148 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 8, 2008 4:20 AM

Dale 140, you've posted:

"If you say "I disagree with you about the War on Terror because GEORGE-BUSH-LIED-THOUSANDS-DIED-IRAQ-STEALING-OIL-AMERICA-IS-IMPERIALIST" then you are a fool. If you say you disagree on principled, well-articulated facts and conclusions, then we can at least have a discussion."

Well, let's take these one at a time.

1. "BUSH LIED" - I do think Bush was, at best, reckless about the WMD argument and at worst, decided to go into Iraq and justify it however he could. He said things which turned out to be false. As it turns out, Iraq had nothing to with 9/11, was not about to fall victim to Iran, was not about to attack Kuwait any time soon, had no WMDs and the decision to go in there was, in my reasoned judgment as someone who thinks terrorism is a bad thing, senseless.

2. "STEALING OIL" - it's not being stolen, but the presence of 11% of the world's reserves in Iraq was an unpalatable factor in the decision to invade. That decision had more to do with oil than 9/11. I know that many countries contract oil up to international companies and the general population don't see the benefit. Whether the Iraqi people will feel "robbed" in 20 years' time is up to them. I suspect they will. This is different to me suggesting the US is going to just go in and rip them off or steal the oil. I'm sure it will all be legal. But can we agree that oil was a huge factor in the decision to invade? And that some might legitimately see rampant continued cheap oil consumption as not necessarily something that justifies that invasion?

2. "THOUSANDS DIED" - well, this is self-evident isn't it? They did. Civilians. In their hundreds of thousands. No one wanted that regardless of their view on invasion and I'm not suggesting that for a second. I'm respectful of some basic elements of human goodness on both sides so let's not caricature each other as either "monsters" or "softies". But it surely amounts to another legitimate reason why someone might say they are against the invasion of Iraq? Why wouldn't it be a factor?

3. "AMERICA IS IMPERIALIST" - Let's not be blind to the very real intention in America to perpetuate its own superpower status. This isn't an evil motive. It's natural, to be expected and in fact, for me, a very good thing because I'm lucky enough to live in the Free World. In the past, the US has interfered in Central America, South America, South East Asia etc. and it fought a Cold War and won it, to all our benefit. Calling this "imperialist" in a Victorian sense of going in, running up a flag and enslaving the native population is idiotic. The US is largely a benign beacon of hope and freedom for the free world. But it is "imperialist" in a certain "self-preservation" manner. And it's when this self-preservation motive is hijacked, distorted and actually results in harm to the US that I get angry about it.

Anyway, like you, I have a hard time letting things go unchallenged where I don't think they're right. I enjoyed your posts here and hope you continue to contribute.


Comment #149 - Posted by: J1 at October 8, 2008 5:45 AM


I'm glad to see you posting again. Much as I'm tempted, I'll pass on J1's comments, at least for now.

I did want to pass along one simple piece of logic that should tell any reasonably intelligent person everything they need to know about Barack Obama.

1) We wants to increase expenditures $870 billion. This includes, by the way, provision for 60 some odd thousand new soldiers, and 20 some odd thousand new Marines.

2) He wants to balance the budget.

3) He wants to finance this by raising taxes on the wealthiest 5% of Americans, most notably through Capital Gains taxes, and Dividend taxes. Taxes on investment income, in other words. He wants to deincentivize investment during a period of shrinking money flow, and if he is sincere, do it in a MAJOR, Chavezian way.

Anyone that cannot see a problem here should by all means vote for the man. If we as a nation elect a program like that, we deserve what we get, and I hope we learn the lesson.

Comment #150 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 8, 2008 6:53 AM

Barry, I realise you'll think my post exhibits latter-stage symptoms of Leftist Ideology contamination, so your forbearance is appreciated.

Lest there be any doubt about intentions or attitude on my part, I wish everyone on here nothing but good things. I like these debates. We tackle emotive topics. If I'm clumsy and cause offence from time to time, it's not intentional.


Comment #151 - Posted by: J1 at October 8, 2008 7:34 AM

Thanks Dale and Jeff,

I fear as usual my comments will be short on specifics. This is a the result of a lack of time and an ignorance that I share with many.

I think we all agree on numbers 1-2 (whether and why), that winning a “War on Terror” is worthwhile and that the reasons for this include the fact that where terrorist tactics (especially those of AQ) go unopposed they will proliferate.

On number 3 (how much) I think there needs to be a more transparent discussion about what an acceptable cost is. Of course there already is some sense of what is acceptable and what isn’t - that is why there are not 2,000,000, American soldiers in Iraq, or only 2000. As part of this conversation, the US should demand and expect their allies to pay a greater share of the cost (while this may mean the total effort diminishes or is reprioritized). Its allies may not do this because they (rightly or wrongly) perceive terrorism as less of a threat to them. Sit down with them all, crunch some numbers, and divy up the tasks in proportion to population and money. Be open and fair, shame those who won't help.

Perhaps, the US should verbally give up Georgia et al., in exchange for Russia’s cooperation against Iran. Iran’s nuclear capacity is an acute short-term threat that might be neutralized for decades with some decisive and unified action among the UN powers that matter. It may seem unpalatable to let Russia do as it will in the Caucasus, but really, what can the US do there now anyway, and, real liberalization in that part of the world is a long way off.

On number 4 (defining “win”) this is crucial, and I think the administration failed greatly by not having any sort of discussion with Americans about this. Neither of you said that winning means creating/imposing stability/democracy in the middle-east. I hope I can accurately interpret you as agreeing that that this is not an appropriate goal for the “War on Terror.” As you both said, killing/neutralizing terrorist leadership seems like a much more sane goal. Even this may be an unattainable goal.

And that’s why I think of numbers 5-8 (acceptable/manageable levels) as raising issues that need to be dealt with more frankly by whichever administration is in office next January. I think that ridding the world of terrorist leaders in the short-term (i.e. less than 20 years) is beyond the power of any nation or collection of nations. Drastically lowering the number and efficacy of terrorist leaders will take many decades because it will require the creation of large, stable, educated middle-classes in countries which now do not have them, and worse, in countries where civil society is on the brink of collapse. Long term, the war on terror is an economic battle. Short-term, it should be a battle of diplomatic and concentrated military/security containment in which the West and its allies grow, while terrorist breeding grounds shrink. It should be a side-show to the main business of growing a great civilization, not the main preoccupation of one in decline.


You may not have seen it but I posted something for you at the end of last rest day.

Comment #152 - Posted by: Prole at October 8, 2008 7:51 AM


I agree with your points 1, 2, 2, and 3.

One thing I often do is define the US interest as a priority emanating from something akin to a national self, i.e,: "the very real intention in America to perpetuate its own superpower status."

We do this with "Iran" and "Russia" and even "Sweden". Perhaps when we talk international relations we have to, to a degree, but this sort of collectivization obscures internal divisions that may exist, and ignores opportunities for connection. Perhaps this reflects the importance of the fact that whoever controls a nation's military is able to define that nation's interest in the eyes of the rest of the wold, i.e., the Russian interest we care about is the one that can launch nukes, and roll tanks.

You would think that a great counterweight to the this aggregation of national interest-defining power would be those who control/run the business life of a nation. I wonder how often the big-business/corporate community and the military are at the opposite ends of the foreign policy stick.

Comment #153 - Posted by: Prole at October 8, 2008 8:47 AM

Prole, LOL - my bad. So much for my preview check.

Comment #154 - Posted by: J1 at October 8, 2008 9:19 AM

Prole/Barry/Bingo - Just been a busy late summer and early fall with my two businesses. Tough to complain in light of others' economic woes.

J1 - I appreciate your posts, but when you break down the point I was making line by line, you're really not doing what I was talking about. Notice that in most of those posts you actually falsify what was said (Imperialism, stealing oil, etc.). You and I agree on most of what you wrote. Seriously. Because you've at least thought this through and do not engage in the fallacy of "America is always wrong, no matter what" or "if we were just nicer, the terrorists would like us and leave us alone" or "let's hide within our borders and all will be well". We don't have that option, as you are aware. Iraq sitting on a good chunk of the world's oil reserves is one of the great ironies of geology and political reality. People who complain about America protecting its energy interests as somehow "evil" are (generally), in my mind, incapable of holding a serious thought on the issue. The funny thing is, they're usually the same people complaining about the poor and heating costs during the winter - hello? Who is going to suffer the most if there is a shortage of, or rise in prices of, petroleum products if Iraq and other nations can economically blackmail us? Would drilling in the ANWR not help those who are at the lowest end of the economic spectrum in the short (and possible long) term?

Peter - I think you and I are misinterpreting each other. I 'm not trying to be impolite and have been, for as long as I've been posting here, one of the chief advocates of some sense of etiquette and respect for fellow CF'ers. But you again put on me the blame when I responded to blatantly disrespectful and inane comments (probably by trolls) that have no basis in fact or reason. I don't get why someone who says something that is unsupportable is given a pass while you chide me about my manners. In fact, what you are doing is exactly what I disagree with - you ignore the failings of someone who says something that you happen to agree with. But you've offered nothing concrete (like I have) to refute (or even engage) the substance of what I've said.

And you've attributed to me at least three things that I never said.
1 - "If I had fought in a war and risked my life, I would probably not appreciate if someone suggested it was in vain."
I don't think it was in vain. At all. I know it wasn't, as a matter of fact, not feeling or opinion. Much better than the armchair quarterbacks do.

2. "But solving this issue, or requiring a "solution" from ppl that are not big fans of this war, is a little like I would chop off my leg with an axe and then ask you to fix it. Now, I do not think there even IS a good solution, only bad and worse alternatives."
I have no idea, seriously, what you are saying here or responding to. Maybe it's a language issue. I simply do not understand this passage at all. But I don't want a solution from people who are not "big fans" of this war. I'm not a "big fan" of this war. Seen war up close and personal, not a big fan at all. Does bad things to the human body and is horrible on the digestive tract.

3. "About people expressing emotions. I dont believe there are actual points of view or opinions without emotions. And whats logic to you seems totally irrelevant and stupid to me."

I never said there are opinions without emotions, what I pointed out was that many people will simply state what they "feel" and believe that somehow should be taken as an adult conversation. My kids used to do that when they were young - they're much older now. I expect educated adults who want to be taken seriously and talk about such matters to have some basis in fact and reason. People seem to think it's okay to just "feel" about these things without having a clue.

4. "Of course, I do not in any way respect, honor or defend terrorist acts."
I love this caveat. No one does, Peter, but the difference between us is that I won't stand by and become a victim; nor will I pretend that "violence solves nothing". It does. It solves a lot. When will people give up this fallacy. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, Ahmadinejad, AQ, Bin Laden, the Taliban, will not be stopped with kind words, flowers, or treaties/appeasement. They will be stopped (or at least contained and kept in their boxes) with large caliber weapons handled by men who are ready, willing, and able to use them at a moment's notice. Period.

MacArthur - "Whoever thinks the pen is mightier than the sword clearly has never encountered automatic weapons."

4. Peter, here is the central fallacy (I believe) in your argument - which I've pointed out already once and you have yet to address.

"I believe other countries also will come to this conclusion themselves, just like European monarchies died out 100-200 years ago."
The European monarchies did not just die out. In fact, they still have a Queen in England. And they didn't die out without bloodshed. America didn't peacefully get itself away from King George and, more importantly, we needed the help of other countries (oh, what happened to ye, France?) to make it happen.

"And this happend wihtout the information technology that exist today, but still ppl were informed and made a conscious choice: We want a change! When that happens, things can and will change. (No rule, army or government can permanently remain in control if a large majority of the population is against it) It seems now that the political situation in named countries has not changed enought to make this permanent change. Thats why I also think there is a chance this war will have been fought in vain.
If this change comes too soon, by interference of other forces (like US) chances are that the reaction will the opposite of the desired one. Like forcing a child to eat vegetables... it will only more stubbornly hold on to their cookies."

Equating the social, economic, and political circumstances that are required for countries to "birth" democracy to a kid not eating their vegetables. And you want me to take you seriously.

In any event, Peter, perhaps I could have been kinder to you. For that I sincerely apologize.

To make a final point, Peter, Sweden found democracy peacefully because it was internal. Had you and your'n been exporting terrorism against the US while saying "hey, stay out of here, we need time to find democracy on our own and will only resent it otherwise" I would have supported dropping bombs on you, too. I absolutely support letting countries come to democracy, but not when they're either exporting terrorism or otherwise providing logistical support to terrorists. At that point, don't be surprised if the world's superpower decides you need a "regime change".

Comment #155 - Posted by: Dale_Saran at October 8, 2008 10:17 AM

Barry, Nadia, Paul, Bingo, (and Dale from a few weeks ago), Thanks so much for the encouraging words!
I agree with you Barry, never give up Hope; it has been the one thing that I have always had and clung to.


Comment #156 - Posted by: jknl at October 8, 2008 10:46 AM

#136 Thank you!

Comment #157 - Posted by: Darryl at October 8, 2008 1:15 PM


You're welcome!! I should add, that the hope of hope falls in that category. Some days you just keep the shoes moving.

Actually, one other thought, that occurred to me yesterday as I was contemplating your post.

Pain, it seems to me, is not cumulative, but transformative. Some things you can't not react to. You will be moved and changed. All you can affect is the direction. It's like a wind blowing through you, rearranging everything.

From such is true faith built. This is an opportunity, if you can bring yourself to see it that way. Like everything else, easier said than done, I know. But not impossible. It's been done countless times.

Comment #158 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 8, 2008 2:34 PM

great pic...........cant start young enough :p

Comment #159 - Posted by: Michel van Grinsven 23 / m / 175 lbs / Rotterdam at October 9, 2008 2:39 AM

I know this is a day after, so you might miss it, but my hope is is that you will see it.

Pain is most definitely transformative. Pain in life is what changes you, pleasure is the reward for the change. Faith is what brings you through. In addition to hope, I have always had a strong amount of faith. Sometimes it is the only thing that will bring you through difficult situations. It takes a continuous practice of faith to turn your fears and troubles over and to believe that everything will work out, good or bad. With all of the times I have been in the dark hole there is still a light in there with me. The light is hope.

As you said, it is important to keep moving the shoes. Keep getting back on the horse. I taught myself what I need to do (practicing forgiveness, looking for the joy, daily thankfulness) to bring myself out, it just takes time. Sometimes I have been able to prevent the slide down, other times it has happened despite the prevention.

I believe that everything in life is a lesson and there is a reason for everything. Sometimes though the reason is not revealed immediately and you have to be patient and wait and have faith. It is a continuous circle, but not a monotonous one.

Thanks for sharing your wisdom and for listening.


Comment #160 - Posted by: jknl at October 9, 2008 8:15 AM

pulled back muscle in last workout, so no weights today

ran 50 min in morning and 40 min mountain bike ride in afternoon

Comment #161 - Posted by: DJB at October 9, 2008 10:09 AM

25 min bike 10/20 due to patella femoral syndrome.

Comment #162 - Posted by: kevin o at October 9, 2008 6:27 PM


Glad to do it. Sounds like my words helped a bit. Really, I know, nothing helps all that much, but it never hurts to hear from people who can at least begin to understand where you're at. It is, and always will be, your cross though.

I have a running joke with a coworker that if I ever figure it all out, I will email the answer to her, High Priority. I'll copy you.

As far as getting back on the horse, you of course need to do it, but in my own view it's equally important not to fault yourself for falling off.

To me--and we have a lot of people here with more experience in this than me--will is what keeps you moving. It cannot, however, dictate your emotions. Personally, I can't control how I feel; I can just control how I behave. That is what will is for.

What you learn from time spent in darkness is that you survive. A friend once said to me that I'm a survivor, and on contemplation, I think she was right. I never quit, and I always adapt, no matter the circumstances. Those two traits will get you through anything.

Hopefully that makes some sense. It's been a long day. All the best!!!

Comment #163 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 9, 2008 10:39 PM


I did see your post, but honestly it warrants the expenditure of more focus than I currently possess. I will try to respond tomorrow, though.

Given our various exchanges over time, please take it as a compliment that despite our differences, I respect the time you have spent developing your mental life.

Comment #164 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 9, 2008 10:41 PM

An important thought occurred to me today, with respect to the current fiscal crisis. We are going to have a fire sale with respect to national assets, at a time when China, Russia, and the Middle East are all cash rich.

It was standard practice in the 1920's, before the current round of regulations hit, for large individual investors to get together, smoke a few cigars, and decide to buy up then sell a certain stock. They would even trade among themselves to stimulate volume, and pay off newspaper editors to print favorable stories about Company X. It didn't matter who it was, or how they were doing.

They buy a lot, the stock suddenly looks attractive to ordinary investors, then after it rises an amount they agree upon, they sell. Nowadays, they could even take a short position, as some Lehman Brothers investors have been accused of.

Now, I am not knowledgeable enough to know exactly why the crunch hit, but very few other people are either, and I don't trust the media to do its job. For all I know, they are on somebody's payroll. NBC certainly is on the payroll of GE (they are owned by GE), and by extension within the domain of Warren Buffet.

The precipitating problem was illiquidity. Money had been paid out for securities which normally sold, then they didn't.

Clearly, the securities were not properly valued, and the whole thing was set up like a house of cards. But our economic fundamentals ARE strong, to the very best of my knowledge.

The Saudis, the Russians, the Sheikhs--they all have plenty of money, and can afford to take short term hits in their investments. They could collectively--or even individually, as nations who all want Obama elected--stop spending right before the election. Easy enough to do.

Once our government gets these houses, it won't want them. It will sell them off. Whoever buys them, will get great prices. Now, you can only truly buy things if you have the money for them. Loans are not money. They are someone else's money, unless your investment pays off and you can repay the loan and have something left over.

When you lose the loaned money, you are now a debtor. If we are borrowing money from abroad, we are not just shipping jobs abroad--we are shipping our money, our true national wealth abroad.

Add to this the budget Obama proposes, which will put us nearly a trillion in the hole the first year, less his tax increases on 5% of Americans, and the only way he can finance it is to continue borrowing money from the Chinese.

In the debates, only McCain talked about a spending freeze, and actually ending or reducing federal programs. Both Biden and Obama talked only about reducing the speed with which we increased expenditures. Biden, in an especially "poignant" moment, said he would slow our DOUBLING of foreign aid.

I would like to believe Obama can be all things to all people. I really would. He looks and sounds Presidential. He's congenial. He appears passionate, but even tempered.

And yet, he can't possibly make this all work. 20% of our Federal expenditures are currently related to Medicare and Medicaid, and they are rising. There is simply no way he can fund universal healthcare without continuing massive deficit spending, and the only places he is likely to make cuts are on national defense, and funding our current war efforts, his rhetoric notwithstanding.

Comment #165 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 10, 2008 7:04 AM

Wanted to add a war on Russia's new proposed defense organization. According to the understanding of the Cold War as based on competition for alliances, that is a large step towards a new Cold War. That IS Cold War, in fact.

I can't blame Putin--or whoever his front man is, whose name I forget--for acting now. We have voluntarily placed ourselves in a vulnerable position.

The root problem here--the very root--is that we forgot that you can't have it all. There's a country song out now--"I want to do it all"--and one of the lines is "Try to rob Peter
Without paying Paul".

Greed is nothing more than finding your satisfaction in quantitative growth. Growth in things: experiences understood as things, people (beautiful men, beautiful women) understood as things. Religious people call this idolotry.

Greed--a quantitative orientation--is inevitable without a means for managing resentment, and cultivating contentment, which was the prime role of traditional values.

What is the sacralization of personal responsibility but a simultaneous empowerment, and demand? You get control of your life--which is good, and the sine qua non of any self governing people--but you are also EXPECTED to do so, lest you risk social exclusion.

We have legitimized personal greed, and made the resulting failures socially acceptable.

If the Russians get any takers, this will in my view be the root cause. If Obama gets elected, the same.

You simply can't do it all. Accepting this is the beginning of the path to true happiness.

Comment #166 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 10, 2008 7:43 AM

First sentence should read "word". I will accept that as a Freudian slip, though.

Comment #167 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 10, 2008 7:45 AM


No time for a more indepth comment, but did want to say I didn't really understand what he was saying, with respect to primary and secondary. Let me therefore be more clear in what I am saying, which might further the cause of increasing understanding.

What looks out of my eyes is a consciousness. Maybe it is an epiphenomenon of material processes, or a soul looking out of a body. I don't know.

Phenomenologically, though, I know that what informs my attention is largely guided by intuitions, and processes which are not fully conscious. I don't think any of us fully understand why we do everything we do.

Hypnotized subjects, for example, given a suggestion to cough loudly when the word "shuffle" is said, will come up with ex post facto rationalizations. No doubt much of our behavior is like this, and the dream of Rationalism is to enable greater rule governed behavior, by having more explicit rules.

This sort of fuzziness is the domain of what I am terming myth. It is a domain that includes your rational consciousness, but is not limited to it.

It contains what might be termed, after David Bohm, an "implicate order", which is latent knowledge not made explicit.

My overarching intention with this concept is simply to create a place-holder for psychological and other factors that invariably and necessarily influence all our interactions with the world.

You can't "do" science without bringing to it the fuzziness that attends being human.

My most recent example of this comes from the book "Assault on Truth: Freud's suppression of the Seduction Theory". Shortly stated, he believed that most of his hysterical patients (symptoms would include things like being unable to walk, despite having no mechanical or neurological deficiencies) were molested.

However, he was uniformly rejected by all of his colleagues, and caved under pressure. This led to all the fanciful myths still being foisted on first year college students as somehow useful.

Studying this history, as so many others in the history of science and thought, I was struck by how rule bound all thinkers are, to the extent that they are literally unable to manipulate the levers and gears of the sophisticated device that is science.

Therefore, what comes before science needs a name. I call it myth.

Comment #168 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 10, 2008 2:55 PM

Wow, wish I had stuck around this thread since posting (#12).

Hilarious to see people assume I'm a Leftist-uber liberal-America-hater. In reality, I'm a card carrying Republican with 7 years active duty, serving in both OIF and OEF. Will likely be going back soon.

When I say I'm "Republican" I mean, "Actual Republican". Not this pathetic group of neo-cons who have plagued the party for the last decade. This is the same group that has expanded the fed budget by over 30% in the last 8 years and spread the troops thin around the world, looking for dragons to slay in third world countries that poses zero threat to national security. It was Democrats who got us into Korea and Vietnam, and eventually Republicans who were voted in to get us out. We delayed getting out of 'Nam, despite campaign promises, and thousands of more Americans died as a result. ...for what? To stop the spread of communism? A system that economically collapsed on itself? Make no mistake - we didn't defeat communism. Communism defeats itself.

These same neo-cons celebrated the passage of the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act and think that it's ok to go to war without a proper declaration from Congress (shame on Congress). BTW, voting for the Patriot Act does not make you a patriot. It does, however, make you an accessory to the single largest blow to individual freedom and liberty in the history of America.
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" - Benjamin Franklin

But, as much as the neo-cons love to "Spread Democracy" through force of arms, it will eventually come to an end. Not because they'll change their mind, but because we are bankrupt. All great empires have come to an end largely due to economic reasons. We will be no exception. Fortunately (and ironically) for me, my military job maintains a level of job security despite the current (and increasing) economic downturn.

No matter who wins in November, little will change in the area of foreign policy. The current arguments amount to small differences in the number of troops that should be placed in a particular theater. There is no serious discussion of pulling out of Iraq or Afghanistan. Not to mention South Korea, Germany, Spain, Italy, England, Turkey, Japan, and the other 100+ counties we have bases in. The budget will grow and troops will continue to be spread thin. Social Security and Medicare will soon require a larger portion of the budget. Perhaps the Treasury will print more money (inflation) to cover the cost or the budget will be massaged to compensate. If it's the latter, the defense bill will be the first to trim, making a weary force do more with less. That is the current mantra anyway, right? A leaner, stronger force. ...right.

The chicken hawks will continue to speculate which country(ies) we should bomb next, or which ones we should continue to bomb. Meanwhile neglecting that much of Al Qaida is likely in Pakistan...a country with nukes, which only recently was led by a military dictator who overthrew an elected government (sound familiar?). They'll overlook that nearly all of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. They'll reeeally overlook that we borrow billions of dollars from China to fund our empire. Then we spread it around the world in the form of "aid". Fun factoid - we give 4 times more "aid" to arab nations than Israel. Whose side are we on? The answer is, both. So long as they're willing to do our bidding.

Let the neo-cons have their machismo opinions of what war is like and continue to engage in foreign entanglements that always have unintended consequences, no matter how well intentioned. They'll over simplify these entanglements by painting a picture of "good versus evil" or "they hate us because we're free".

I'm hopeful that true conservatives will rise again, arguing for truly free markets, individual freedoms and liberties, and a humble foreign policy. One more fun factoid - "a humble foreign policy...no nation building, no policing the world" was what George W ran on in 2000. What short memories the neo-cons have.

Comment #169 - Posted by: Tom Jefferson at October 10, 2008 7:57 PM

i was hoping we could talk about the war, its all a complete waste of our brave boys blood. all the wars for the past 100 years have been exercises in consolidating power. the movie was the matrix was a metaphor about our situation. if y'all really knew the truth, you would be really upset, the sad thing is the truth is not that hard to find, check out rense.com

Comment #170 - Posted by: stan fowler at October 10, 2008 9:33 PM

ran 6k D+/-200m + 5*200m 100%

Comment #171 - Posted by: Capt_Phil/m_48_181/France at October 11, 2008 1:21 AM

9/11 was planned in Manila, Philippines

Comment #172 - Posted by: panama red at October 13, 2008 11:11 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?