Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!
Humility regarding what man does. Faith in what God does. That means skepticism about politicians' plans to run health care.
Click to Print
Include Comments
Misunderestimating America
U.S. News & World Report senior writer Michael Barone has posted a trenchant editorial at Townhall.com: “Lessons from the Surge.”
Lesson One: Just about no mission is impossible for the United States military.
Lesson Two: Societies can be more easily transformed from the bottom up than the top down.
Lesson Three: It doesn’t pay to bet against America.
Read Barone’s exposition here. Thoughts?
Topic: Newsworthy, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top199 Comments to “Misunderestimating America”
Good article, very even handed. I think the third point is the most trenchant. For all the talk of how thinly spread our military is, they’re accomplishing some heretofore unimaginable things in Iraq right now.
When I went to the movies this week, I saw the trailer for Stop-Loss, which looks to be a dreadfully preachy film about a young man from who deserts the Army after being stop-lossed (i.e. having his contract extended). The whole attitude of the preview contradicted the attitude of every military man or woman I’ve ever met; these brave souls, who fight for our comfort, are above all pragmatists. (There’s not much use for romance or idealism on a battlefield) They know what they got into, and know how to work the system from within. And not one of them would run from their duty. I found the movie’s premise to be quite insulting.
Report comment to moderator
Consider this phrase, from paragraph 5: “George W. Bush, like Lincoln, . . .”
I can smell the smoke coming from certain bloggers’ ears as they read it.
Let’s see that again, shall we?: “George W. Bush, like Lincoln,. . . .”
People with no sense of humor may make snarky comments below.;-)
Report comment to moderator
Li’l trouble with the wink, there.
Report comment to moderator
The problem is that the war we have is not the war we agreed to. The Administration told us we’d be in Iraq a short time and leave it as a new democracy.
Now it’s clear that we will be in Iraq a long time and, when we do prevail (we will), it’s far from clear whether the new Iraq will be any more an ally than the old Iraq.
Meanwhile, our ability to respond militarily to other world crises is limited. At a time when Iran, North Korea, China and once again Russia are real threats, it does not serve us well to have much of our military force mired in Iraq.
I also object to Barone’s repeating the old canard that critics of the Iraq policy “relish” the prospect of American defeat. This is the same tired old drum that jingoists always beat … if you question whether we can win you must want us to lose. It is rubbish.
Report comment to moderator
Lesson 4: Whatever George Bush does will either be hated by the Democrats, or ignored by the Left. Witness that since the surge has improved conditions in Iraq, the Left has been focusing on other things.
Report comment to moderator
Pres. Bush has shown splendid courage and determination in prosecuting the difficult War in Iraq in the face of virulent opposition. Most major wars in American history have lasted longer than hoped for and have involved some political and military mistakes.
I agree that the success of Petraeus’s counter-insurgency strategy has been dazzling, though no one should be complacent given there is still much military and diplomatic work to be done.
General Petraeus in his 28 December letter to the troops praised them for the excellent success so far but cautioned them as follows:
The way ahead will not be easy. Inevitably, there will be more tough days and tough weeks. Unforeseen challenges will emerge. And success will require continued hard work, commitment, and initiative from all involved. As we look to the future, however, we should remember how far we have come in the past year. Thanks to the tireless efforts and courageous actions of the Iraqi people, Iraq’s political and military leaders, the Iraqi Security Forces, and each of you, a great deal has been achieved in 2007. Thus, as we enter a new year, we and our Iraqi partners will have important accomplishments and a newfound sense of hope on which we can build.
Report comment to moderator
It’s hard to know where to begin. “Dazzling Success” in Iraq????
Oh yea, Iraq broken up into a thousand armed camps is really “bottom up” work. Now, after 6 years they finally have electricity and running water, things can go back to normal. Oh wait, after a trillion dollars and 11 billion flat out missing to who knows where, they don’t have electricity and running water.
And all of our success in this country and in foreign policy can certainly be laid at the feet of the Republicans. At least he got that right.
FROM THE ARTICLE: But it appears that they have “misunderestimated” him once again, and have “misunderestimated” the competence of the American military and of free peoples working from the bottom up to transform their societies for the better. It’s something to be thankful for as the new year begins.
You get so sick of people tying Bush to the military. Considering his own “stellar” military career, you would think anyone that would do that would choke.
The ONLY thing about this administration I’m thankful for as the New Year begins is that we can finally get rid of the worst and most disastrous president in our nation’s history.
My own mother, who is a lifelong Republican and who was crushed that I couldn’t support a dirty party with such damaging policies has gone from actively campaigning for Bush at his first election to lamenting at what a immoral and dishonest person he is. Just like Pat Buchanon, at eighty plus, she says the invasion of Iraq is the biggest blunder by far than any other tragic mistake that has happened during her lifetime to this country.
Ok, so the writer gave his three points, he has clicked his heels together three times and made his wishes, he needs to take off his magic slippers and find out what is really happening in Iraq. More women in the government???? Surely he knows that in many areas, woman are being forced to wear bags (burkas) and can no longer travel without the approval of a male relative. Oh yea, this sounds promising.
I wonder how much he cost?? If we can throw away billions for no apparent reason, he can certainly be paid. We can pay him in silver coins.
Report comment to moderator
Barone is an elitist who makes his living by sneering at liberals.
Notice his use of the passive voice: “Now we have seen it done.” Barone is referring to “containing the violence” which some in the Pentagon thought we couldn’t accomplish.
The question is: Did we contain the violence?
The civil war in Baghdad actually escalated during the surge. Baghdad went from 65% Shiite to 75% Shiiite. UN data suggests that 700,000 residents of Baghdad fled the city during the surge, which turned it into an overwhelmingly Shiite city.
Guerrilla attacks in al-Anbar province were reduced this past July to a quarter of what they had been the previous year, without a significant troop escalation in al-Anbar. Similarly, attacks on British troops fell dramatically when they moved out of Basra to the airport away from the population, but this change had nothing to do with our troops.
About 600 civilians a month continue to die in political violence, not including deaths of soldiers and police. Iraqis overwhelmingly believe their conflicts are mostly the fault of US military presence, which they want to end. Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish groups are not reconciling with each other. The government is an empty shell.
STEVEG #4 makes an essential point: “. . . the war we have is not the war we agreed to.” George Bush’s ultimate crime, behond the murder, is to deprive American sacrifices of the nobility of peacekeeping. Having gone to war needlessly to protect ourselves from a nuclear threat that didn’t exist, we found ourselves caught in the burning collapse we created, with no choice but to stay or risk worse conflagration, we were told.
Report comment to moderator
Lynn, GREAT article. Thank you, I am passing it on –
RDean, your capacity to ignore the central facts of issues is apparently limitless. In this case Barone is talking about the increasingly clear fact that the “surge” has been so a dazzling success. Do you with your pretended ability to respect empirical truth have any cogent facts to disprove Michael Barone’s view.
Essentially just now AlQuaeda is on its heels, and both American and Iraqi civilian casualties have been decreased by about 60%. Do you with your pretended ability to respect empirical truth have any cogent facts to disprove Michael Barone’s view, or shall you continue to adhere to your fundamentalist assertions?
Report comment to moderator
There never was any more than a few thousand Al Queada in Iraq, if that. Nearly all the violence has been Iraq on Iraq. Shiite against Sunni, Kurds against Sunni, Shiite against Kurds. Even Sunni on Sunni and Shiite on Shiite. How can you not know that???? You need to find out info beyond “Bush bullet points”.
Connect the dots. When you divide a country up into a thousand armed camps, naturally, voilence will be checked. EVERYONE IS IN ARMED CAMPS!!!! DUH!!
You know, when hairdressors are being attacked and forced underground, things are bad.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22399894/
Report comment to moderator
We can congratulate Bush all we want. But he is last in line for any praise. First and foremost, praise should go to the Iraqis. They have decided that Al-Qaeda truly is evil and have had enough of their violence. Al-Qaeda overplayed its hand in Iraq (see Michael Totten and Michael Yon for edtails) so much that even Bin Laden has apologized to the Iraqis. Too little too late.
Next, congratulate the troops. They have done an outstanding job of being flexible and powerful, learning quickly how to handle tough challenges and not depend on stovepiping situations (a bad tendency of most bureaucracies) to find a solution.
As Peter alluded, there is much work to be done. Things will start to get tricky when the Iraqis start to get down to politics. Or when U.S. troops begin to leave and Sunni/Shia groups have no one to referee them. Not to mention the Turkish invasion of the Kurdish north. US and Iraqi troops have no sway over Kurdish PKK terrorist, so Turkey has invaded.
Baraone and others won’t talk about it, because they are hedging their bets. If a Democrat wins the White House, you can be sure they will lay any future failure in Iraq on the Dems feet. If Iraq becomes more stable, it is because of Bush. Win-win.
It’s truly sad that political hacks like Baraone see Iraq as just a stage for Bush. It’s like BDS in reverse. They love that man and could really care less about anything else.
US military can do anything? It can’t nation-build – something the military brass has been telling Bush and the politicos for years.
Report comment to moderator
Lester – 12
If President Bush had not sent our troops in, Saddam would still be ruling with his wicked hand, so you can drop the Bush being last argument. The Iraqis would still be under the hand of a man who thought nothing of killing them. Our President, military leaders, troops are what made the difference, it is up to the Iraqis to use what they have been given to further the cause of their freedom…………. but please try to remember what facilitated this event!
Report comment to moderator
#12: so much that even Bin Laden has apologized to the Iraqis.
Check out the following article describing the recently released Bin Laden Tape (the fact that this bottom blossom is still sending us tapes underlines the magnitude of the Bush failure).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22430680/
FROM THE ARTICLE: “The most evil of the traitors are those who trade away their religion for the sake of their mortal life,” bin Laden said.
Bin Laden said U.S. and Iraqi officials are seeking to set up a “national unity government” joining the country’s Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.
“Our duty is to foil these dangerous schemes, which try to prevent the establishment of an Islamic state in Iraq, which would be a wall of resistance against American schemes to divide Iraq,” he said.
When he is saying, “divide Iraq”, he isn’t talking about from each other, but rather the Muslims from their religion.
Bin Laden is saying you need to be part of the Army of God and you will find happiness only after you die. This is very close to what the Christians propose in this country. If you take out the word “Allah” and replace with the words, “Christian God”, I suspect much of what Bin Laden says would be greatly appreciated by some. I’m not saying Christians would level buildings filled with innocent people, but they would certainly restrict freedom. They do that now.
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2006/10/wedge-document.html
#13: but please try to remember what facilitated this event!
Oh we remember all right.
“Before the smoking gun becomes a mushroom cloud.”
“WMD”
“To bring them democracy”
“To free the people of Iraq”.
“So 9/11 will never happen again”.
Their hairdressers have been driven underground. Does that sound even remotely anything like FREEDOM????
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22399894/
You guys need to stop. We went into Iraq for oil and no other reason. There is plenty of dictators in the world way worse than Sadam EVER was, way worse, but they don’t have oil.
Report comment to moderator
Barone’s comparison of Bush to Lincoln is propaganda. Barone suggests that Gens. Sanchez and Casey are to Gen. McClellan as Gen. Petraeus is to Gen. Grant. This is a false analogy. The problem with our strategy through 2006 was not the lack of initiative and assertiveness, the infamous deficiencies of Gen. McClellan. Our failed strategy was in fact overly aggressive and bordered on atrocious abuse as exemplified by the conduct of the disgraced Lt. Illario Pentano. The success of the counter-insurgency strategy of 2007 was not due to the unleashing of our formerly restrained firepower or to a Shermanesque march to the sea, but resulted from the realization that Iraqi citizens were not the enemy, and we had to learn to distinguish and protect them. There could be no further excuse for failing to tell the difference between a non-combatant and a guerrilla fighter. We could not afford to kill another 87,000 civilians. Our troops had to go native and do what before we didn’t want them to do— nationbuild.
Report comment to moderator
Rdean’s reading list in post 14 –
Nothing like ‘GOOGLE’ to make your day!
Report comment to moderator
Bush is an arsonist who claims glory for helping to fight the fire.
Report comment to moderator
#16: Nothing like ‘GOOGLE’ to make your day!
The information is out there. This is why it’s called the “World Wide Web”. You know “World Wide”???? That means from all around the world. If we didn’t go looking for information, it’s possible we end up with Bush bullet points.
#16: Our President, military leaders, troops are what made the difference, it is up to the Iraqis to use what they have been given to further the cause of their freedom
And what have they done with that?
Put “Islam” into their constitution as the National Religion.
Said it’s OK to kill Americans.
Divided the country up into a thousand armed camps.
Driven nearly all Christians out of the country.
Driven their hairdressers (of all people) underground.
Put their women in bags.
You might consider doing some research. To do that, you can use, get this, the “World Wide Web”.
Report comment to moderator
During both the Revolutionary and Civil wars about a third of the American people regarded them as immoral and foolish. These people essentially valued peace more than justice. Lincoln in 1864 was at times convinced that he would lose the election due to the anti-war forces.
Many Americans don’t understand the cruel necessity of just wars.
Report comment to moderator
Rdean
You post countless links, people don’t have time to read all the junk you try and send them to –
One of the links:
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2006/10/wedge-document.html
is a joke – It’s an EX Christian blog – I can see where this would appeal to you -
Report comment to moderator
Actually, Victoria, the “Wedge Document” is very real and was written by the Discovery Institute.
you can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
Report comment to moderator
I love Gee Dubya’s amazing insight into war:
“We understand the fright that can come when you’re worried about a rocket landing on top of your home.”
Report comment to moderator
Actually a third of the people valued loyalty, peace and good government more than a radical ovethrow of the old elite by the colonial elite. And they were persecuted for their differing opinion. The American Loyalists — Canada’s first refugee immigrants.
As for the article;
I don’t think anyone underestimated American strength. If anything most people over estimated US military and civil power. Not until the chaos of Baghdad when it became clear that the US gov’t had no real plan and did not establish authority did people begin to re-evaluate their opinion of US power. I know I did at this point.
The occupation of Iraq demonstrate the incompetence of the administration and its use of the armed forces. At this point, the ability of US power to deter aggression by its sheer presence no longer existed. US power was then perceieved as a paper tiger and only recently has the US been able to remake that image and garner some respect back.
However, the “surge” has not been as successful as some wished to claim. The MSM has been quick to accept this narrative (since its easier than real research) but scratching beneath the surface reveals other considerations.
Causation is a difficult concept to prove even at the best of times and in the chaos of Iraq its even more difficult. Other factors must be considered including the de facto segragation lowers the chance of tribal/religious violence, the negotiated settlement in the al-anbar province in which the US and the Iraq central gov’t recognized tribal authority in exchange for eliminating foreign fighters, the withdrawal of British forces lowered the rate of violence in Basra
Report comment to moderator
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”
President Bush, Washington, D.C., 8/5/04
Report comment to moderator
Ah Hrw and others. You’ll find those straws. Just keep grabbing.
Stubob. “George Bush, like Lincoln…”
Man you’re right. I can feel the ripple. Just see the comments above.
Report comment to moderator
HamachiTwo
You little quote is in BOLD!
Report comment to moderator
#20: is a joke – It’s an EX Christian blog – I can see where this would appeal to you -
Poor Victoria. Just because information comes from someplace you don’t like, doesn’t mean it’s not true. The “Wedge Document” was posted in it’s entirty on that site. Read it. Knowing you, I suspect you will think it’s a “good thing”. People that subscribed to this were Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson among others.
I’ve known about this document for years. Initially, Christians tried to deny they wrote it, but eventually came clean and publicly emraced the concepts.
Report comment to moderator
Peter – so the Civil War was a “just war.” No doubt your Ivy League education has fallen flat.
Here in the South, we understand the truth: the Civil War was not about slavery. It was about preventing a just secession from the United States. Lincoln couldn’t stand that a group of free American states had had enough with its current government and chose to form their own.
Lincoln’s choice was so unpopular he had to break the Constitution to ensure the North “stayed the course.”
But yes, if Harvard or Yale (can’t remember where you went) insists it was all about slaves, then carry on.
Heh.
Report comment to moderator
RDEAN,
What was it that you didn’t like about Falwell? I would like to know.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
George Bush, not like Lincoln, but rather like Napoleon and another military visionary whose name is too painful for comparison, has his own delusional version of a disastrous “Russian front.”
George Bush is stuck in the snow or sand of a stale seige while our real enemy grows more dangerousw on another front. Because he took soldiers out of Afghanistan, which was a war of necessity, in order to fight a war of choice for emotional reasons, Bush has failed to accomplish vital objectives which could have enabled the US to come to terms with the chaos of Pakistan.
The man knows how to create fiascos. The first forty years of his life were a binge of drunkenness and business failures which would have landed anybody without Royal Saudi friends in the gutter. That was nothing, however. Iraq became a fatality almost as soon as he alighted on the aircraft carrier needing to believe that freedom and democracy are generated spontaneously. Afghanistan was an abandoned success that has grown into part of something that could be the worst fiasco of all.
Report comment to moderator
Lester, “it” was about breaking the southern aristocracy’s hold on America that made slave labor the central tenet of its economic and social policy. Lincoln first fought the war to defend the Union but over time defeated the southern aristocratic view. I learned in both in school and at Harvard, as wellas through a process of common sense, though I did have one southern school teacher at the Groton School who plumped for the classic southern tenets of undying liberty.
Report comment to moderator
Peter,
I doubt you will convince anyone who is rooted in the ‘Old South’ to understand what you are saying – The resentment of the north still exists, …. carried down from one generation to another –
As you know, some of the same problems still exist today, …. thankfully to a lesser degree -
Report comment to moderator
The public is treating this war and Bush much as they treated the Civil War and Lincoln.
I would love to hear the spinning of his critics in their graves should Bush eventually come to be regarded much like Lincoln (5th head for Rushmore anyone?).
Report comment to moderator
Peter,
A number of my cousins went to Harvard, ….. do you mind posting what year you graduated, or attended? I understand if you choose not to -
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
2 of my neighbors went to Harvard. Maybe my neighbors are your cousins? Peter Leavitt is probably a cousin of mine, so maybe he knows your cousins or my neighbors. Small world!
Report comment to moderator
Ah yes, when presented with a different side to an debate, whip old stereotypes when you’ve lost. Yes, Victoria, I am a racist Southern holdover. I drink mint juleps when not performing in a Civil War reenactment
Just try to read a real history book – you know, something other than the drivel you read in middle school history – and tell me that the main reason for the Civil War was slavery.
Sadly, you can’t (and neither can Peter, as he admits almost backhanded in his reply).
Even calling it the “Civil War” is wrong. The South never wanted to control the government. They wanted to secede – a perfectly constitutional and logical right that Lincoln, for all his wisdom, simply couldn’t grasp.
Report comment to moderator
That sounds a bit ominous, KRM. Are you suggesting Bush is going to kill most of us?
In the words of our great leader, George W. Bush:
“There’s a huge trust. I see it all the time when people come up to me and say, “I don’t want you to let me down again.”
Report comment to moderator
#29: What was it that you didn’t like about Falwell? I would like to know.
The following are Falwell’s best 10 quotes of course, he has many more, but these are my favorites all in one place:
10. “The idea that religion and politics don’t mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country.”
9. “The ACLU is to Christians what the American Nazi party is to Jews.”
8. “I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won’t have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!”
7. “AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharaoh’s charioteers … AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.”
6. “Nothing will motivate conservative evangelical Christians to vote Republican in the 2008 presidential election more than a Democratic nominee named Hillary Rodham Clinton – not even a run by the devil himself … I certainly hope that Hillary is the candidate. She has $300 million so far. But I hope she’s the candidate. Because nothing will energize my [constituency] like Hillary Clinton. If Lucifer ran, he wouldn’t.” –at a “Values Voter Summit”
5. “Grown men should not be having sex with prostitutes unless they are married to them.”
4. “Billy Graham is the chief servant of Satan in America.”
3. “He is purple — the gay-pride color, and his antenna is shaped like a triangle — the gay pride symbol.” –from a “Parents Alert” issued in Jerry Falwell’s National Liberty Journal, warning that “Tinky Winky,” a character on the popular PBS children’s show, “Teletubbies,” may be gay
2. “You’ve got to kill the terrorists before the killing stops. And I’m for the president to chase them all over the world. If it takes 10 years, blow them all away in the name of the Lord.”
1. “The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America — I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.’” –on the 9/11 attacks
Here is even more:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/jerry_falwell.html
Report comment to moderator
Just saying that 9/11 happened because of gays and feminists and AIDS is here to punish the deserving puts Falwell in the “Hall of Shame”. He is very Christian and displays many Christain ideas and values. I hope he can find a cool spot to sit where he is, but if there is any justice, I doubt it.
Report comment to moderator
5. “Grown men should not be having sex with prostitutes unless they are married to them.”
Report comment to moderator
Lester – 37
I’ve heard it all before. Those who come to California from the South, who have either never traveled beyond their southern roots, tout the same old story, including the corny line of “mint juleps when not performing in a Civil War reenactment” –
The way you phrase your comments, is typical of those whom I have met, who have never ventured away from their provincial area “you know, something other than the drivel you read in middle school history” – your remarks are typical, expected and par for the course –
Maybe you should try to change the name of the war, that would keep you busy – And Lincoln, ….. my you have put yourself on a pedestal, …. you could most likely could have advised President Lincoln and ’set him straight’ LOL
Report comment to moderator
Lester,
What schools teach this southern view? I have heard this taught by Steve Wilkins and I believe it. My family was forced to leave their farm in KY and move north.
Report comment to moderator
This will amuse you, Victoria, as I know you are enamoured with my knowledge of US history. I spent two years in an American liberal arts college where I was taught American hsitory by a traditional state’s rights Democrat. From him I learned to be sceptical of northern established views of the Civil War, any glorification of Lincoln, and to remember slavery wasn’t the only issue which divided the States. Thus I’ve been sympathetic to the southern argument.
Report comment to moderator
Speaking of seceding, it’s us that are holding Iraq together. Sadam gased the Kurds for wanting to secede. The Shiites and Kurds want to secede today.
Thought I would point that out.
Report comment to moderator
hrw: I don’t know what point you’re trying to make by dropping a democrat’s name as your teacher. Whatever it is, it’s most likely driven obsolete by the fact that for all the posturing as civil rights gods, liberals and democrats are not fund of Lincoln. Part of it is his party, but it doesn’t end there. Look at any of the latest black conferences or gathering around you, and you see that bashing Lincoln is all the rage. Your democrat professor would most likely not go against their sentiments.
Report comment to moderator
HRW – 44
To the contrary, I don’t believe you have a grasp of US History – As far as the college you attended, I won’t comment! I’m well aware of many states, and their leanings in different teaching institutions – Part of my career was spent in medicine, Universities, and their specialties and RANKING in the US -
Report comment to moderator
#46 and #47 Obviously we don’t share the same sense of humour. As Victoria is fond of pointing out my Canadian citizenship as a means to degrade my ability to speak on American domestic matters, I thought she would be amused to discover that I was taught US history by a state right’s democrat. The “enamoured” bit was not ment to be taken seriously as I know Victoria’s opinion of my grasp of US affairs.
As for the institution, its a conservative evangelical college.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, sorry if I took your humour in the wrong way –
I do find it hard to believe that an Evangelical College would have a Democrate teaching US History, for a variety of reasons. Would you object to naming the College?
Report comment to moderator
It’s not Calvin is it?
Report comment to moderator
HRW schooled in an evvie college?
Report comment to moderator
#50 wrong college right denomination
Report comment to moderator
H20
For two years only then I left for a public university in Canada where I graduated with a BA, MA and B.Ed
Report comment to moderator
#4…I think a lot of us felt it would be merely Desert Storm II. A sort of wham bam thank you Ma’am in& out war. Many of us had grown up in the era of the quickie wars: Greneda, Panama, Desert Storm I.
The Arabist or Iraqi experts in the GW Bush admin were asleep at the switch or nonexistent. I think it was naive to expect instant democracy in a monoreligion culture like Islam. Unlike the secularized socialist East European states (which other than Russia and Belarus) all emerged from communism and made the transition to market-based democracy, Iraq lacked the social/cultural infrastructure to be a democracy.
As Scharansky has said unless a people have a tradition of liberty you cannot hope for democracy. Give muslims “democracy” and they elect Hamas, Ahmadinejad and other totalitarian nutcases.
An army can win a war but it is the politicians who have the hard task of “winning the peace”.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, just more on your posting.
I recall a news feature where they interviewed otherwise loyal suburban R “security moms” who like you felt that the war we wound up with was not the one we were “originally sold”
I blame all the DC politicians who didnt demand contingencies and a real “exit strategy” if the post-Saddam Iraqis proved inept at effective constitutional govt.
We should have written the Iraqi constitution and imposed it on them as we did the Japanese constitution post WW2. When the Iraqis looted all the museums and the US forces did nothing because we were stretched too thin, that certainly got spun as weakness on our part.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner 55
After 9-11, going into Afghanistan, … then the decision to go into Iraq, I don’t believe ANYONE could have known exactly what would happen. Its that ‘EXACTLY’ which is a stumbling stone, not only to the those in Washington, but everyone –
When you compare the end of WW2 and Japan, to the present situation that isn’t a fair comparison –
I am sure that you know a great deal about what goes on in your IMMEDIATE area where you are, but lets be truthful here, you don’t know the inner workings of the military, the President or his advisors – We all try and ‘arm chair’ this terrible war, but do any of us know enough to lead this country, except those who are in charge right now, with all the information at hand?
Do you really believe that anyone could foresee the future to KNOW EXACTLY an “exit strategy” ? that’s unreasonable –
Report comment to moderator
Powell Doctrine: Always have an exit strategy in place before you begin. As events proved, Rumsfield and friends didn’t even have a finishing plan to the entrance strategy.
Report comment to moderator
HRW
No one has a ‘crystal ball’-
Plans change, nothing is set in stone when it comes to war -
Report comment to moderator
#56: Do you really believe that anyone could foresee the future to KNOW EXACTLY an “exit strategy” ? that’s unreasonable –
Considering the number of wars this country has been involved in since the 1700’s, that alone should make us experts. I don’t know what else to say. Bush was warned and warned again.
Bush refused to listen to the advice if his generals over and over again. It only underlines and underscores his incompetence. He sees the world through his distorted vision. Distorted by religion and growing up privileged and protected. Rules don’t apply to him. They never have. His advice comes from the voices in his own head. How do we know? He told us.
How was he able to get away with this for so long? He and his minions traded in the politics of “fear”. Yellow alert, orange alert. Nuclear weapons. Dirty bombs. WMD. If you are not with us, you are against us. Democrats are on the side of the terrorists. Yellowcake. WWIII. Bush is a terrible man.
Bush planned to invade Iraq before 9/11. The British pointed this out 6 months earlier. Bush USED 9/11 to further his plans to bring democracy to a region of the world that didn’t want it. They had it shoved down their throats at the end of a gun. This is why no over there is “thankful”. They hate us more than ever.
The only reason we aren’t in Iran right now is the CIA released information that Iran had stopped its weapons program in 2003. They kept quiet before and look what happened. They weren’t about to let it happen again. Especially when Bush made them the scapegoat saying their info was faulty after the mess in Iraq became evident. And then the Bush administration “outs” a covert agent? In the old days, this was called “treason”. I don’t know what they call it today.
After the last election, this administration has hired more than a hundred new lawyers and shredded tons of documents. Gee, I wonder why that is? Could it be they know what is coming? I suspect Bush knows “exactly” what is coming.
Report comment to moderator
Rdean
You need a vacation. Have you thought of walking through the woods with Random, sharing thoughts, photographing birds, coming to grips with reality?
Report comment to moderator
I notice HRW is still not declaring which “CONSERVATIVE EVANGELICAL COLLEGE’ he attended here in the States. Typical of a liberal . . .
Report comment to moderator
Well, reading the article, one would get the idea that Iraq is on the verge of nirvana, with the Shia’s, Sunni’s and Kurds waving palm fronds at each other.
Yes, the country is safer for two reasons:
1. The increased presence of American soldiers.
2. The country has been ethnically and religiously cleansed, and partitioned into Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish areas. As long as you stay in your own area, things are pretty safe.
We all know what will happen when the draw down of American soldiers occurs. The various factions are just biding their time, waiting for us to leave. Then they will have their civil war and fight it out amongst themselves.
Our presence in Iraq is only postponing the inevitable – civil war.
Of course, we should understand that the intention of the neo-cons in the Administration is to build a permanent base in Iraq. They have no intention of leaving Iraq ever. And the people of Iraq will resent our occupation of their nation for generations to come. They will raise up children to fight to the death to free their country from the American occupation. We Americans will pay dearly in lost lives, year after year, decade after decade, not to mention trillions of dollars in taxes for the war effort. The neocons care not how many lives are lost or how many trillions of dollars it cost.
If our next president doesn’t get us out of Iraq, I fear we shall be there in perpetuity. As long as the war is fought “over there” and doesn’t kill their own child, the American people will pretty much get used to it and ignore it. Of course what they don’t realize is that by our continued occupation of another country, we are building up an army of people who will someday bring the war to our own doorstep. And the American people will cry and ask “Why did this happen? What did we ever do to them?”. And they will reply, you killed our people, you bombed our homes, your tortured our citizens, and you occupied our land.”
I sincerely believe that George Bush has been one of the most immoral Presidents this country has ever had. I will be talking about that over the next few months, leading up to the election.
By the way, Baghdad, which is supposedly a success story in the war, still only gets about 8 hours of electricity a day, which is half of what they got pre-war. The biggest construction projects underway in Baghdad are walls to keep Sunni and Shia areas separate so they can’t kill each other. It’s becoming one of the most walled cities in the world. So yes, Baghdad is safer, as long as you don’t stray out of your neighborhood or in some places leave your block. Basically, the city is becoming a gigantic prison maze, with check points to restrict people’s movements. Under the Bush doctrine, that’s the new definition of “freedom” in Iraq.
I suspect the full story on Iraq won’t be known until after Bush is out of office. We will be shocked to find out the depth of the lying, deception, the torture, and the loss of liberty of the American people. We will be astounded at the incompetence of George Bush and his cabinet.
Report comment to moderator
Reality is the problems our country is going through. Our young men and women in Iraq aren’t able to walk through the woods and take bird pictures.
I’m a veteran and I just had a nephew safely come back from Iraq right after Thanksgiving.
Bush has been such a major disaster. Knowing that he will be out of office is the one thing I look forward too in the following year.
Every time we get a new tape from Bin Laden, I cringe. That is realily.
Seeing my grand niece and grand nephew cry when they saw their father is my reality. Worrying that he might go back to Iraq is my reality.
Bush needs to be thouroughly investigated after he leaves office. He has a lot of explaining to do.
Report comment to moderator
Rdean – 63
What a revelation….. as you write: .. “Reality is the problems our country is going through. Our young men and women in Iraq aren’t able to walk through the woods and take bird pictures.” ..
When did our fighting military, walk through woods takinging bird pictures?
Don’t worry about Bush, he isn’t confused about ‘bird watching’ for fighting military troops……but those who do?………
People who sign up for the military don’t sign up to walk through the woods and take bird pictures. President Bush did not hold a gun to anyones head to join the military. There is no forced draft.
Report comment to moderator
in answer to lesson 1 and lesson 3. Pride goeth before the fall.
The American military is very capable of meeting challenges that it can not overcome. We should be wise enough to not overestimate are own capabilities. I would not bet that America is capable of surviving a 100 year war by fanatic terrorists that will eventually be able to obtain WMDs and use them on American soil. We cannot win this war with brute force. It will take diplomacy and humility.
In the past year I have taken several trips to Europe and Asia. Overseas, America’s reputation has been tarnished by the foolish acts of our current administration. It seems unthinkable that America was much more respected worldwide with Bill as President than with Bush.
Our economy is weak. Our currency has lost 25% of its value in the past 4 years. The housing market is in crisis. Our healthcare system is failing. Science and education are vastly underfunded and crippled by budget cuts.
Some worried that society is being destroyed by abortion, homosexuality, or atheism. I worry that America is failing due to leadership who values war above peace, emotion over reason, pride over humility, and inspiring fear over delivering hope.
Abortions, violence, drug use, infant mortality, and crime are decreasing. Diseases are being eradicated. Longevity is increasing. Science and education are providing these answers that solve human problems.
Now we must eliminate pride, prejudice, hatred, sloth, selfishness, and ignorance. Unfortunately, some are hiding behind their mistaken beliefs rather than seek truth honestly and openly.
Report comment to moderator
Very good post, Theo.
Report comment to moderator
Theo
You can’t erase sin trying any other way but through Christ, beliveing in Him, repenting and faith –
Pride, prejudice, hatred, sloth, selfishness and all the rest are ugly sin,….so is lying, murder, abortion, homosexuality, adultery, and the list goes on. But unless people come to Christ, all is lost – All these things can decrease, but unless the heart changes and turns to God, there is no Salvation –
The world can respect all the Clintons on the planet, it is the LORD Jesus Christ who can save them.
Salvation among humans is not a popularity contest, its only through our Savior and what he preached, His death on the Cross which will save mankind -
Report comment to moderator
Victoria the mild streak of fatalism and resignation in your post, if representative of American conservatives, does not bode well for America. When people are resign to fate, they are susceptible to mass driven ideology in which one places their individual liberty at risk. After all, if individuals are reliant upon external assistance, they are more willing to resign themselves to their “place” and hence allow those who are not resigned to control their fate.
A historical example is the fatalism of Europeans prior to the Enlightenment. Believing their salvation to be external and not within, the people allowed themselves to be used by those who were not fatalistic.
Modern western civilization received its modern form when it accepted the Enlightenment principles of individual rights and responsibilities. And when the American government and people rediscover individual rights and responsibilities the problems Theo and Anlir speak of will begin to decrease.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast,
With a little intuition, knowledge and logic you can figure it out. But let me help you out since it seems so important to you. Calvin College mentioned by Fyne is typically associated with the Christian Reformed Church as Calvin’s Seminary is the official seminary of the CRC. Members of the CRC have also established the following liberal arts college; Dordt, Trinity, the Kings, and Redeemer. The last two are in Canada, Alberta and Ontario, respectively whereas Trinity is in Chicago and Dordt is in Sioux Center, Iowa. So if you are a betting man the odds are 1 in 2 you would be correct if you guessed Dordt.
As for being a typical liberal; I’m not since I’m an anarchist-socialist in the Orwell tradition. If you magnify my gravatar you will see its the front cover of the anniversary edition of 1984 with the words WAR IS PEACE prominently displayed in a TV screen. I’ve mentioned this before, but you seem to enjoy the standard labels as to keep your intellectual challenges in an easy to manage bilateral opposition.
Finally at 1:30 in the morning, I was doing what every good Leaf fan does every Saturday night — crying myself to sleep as my unrewarded adoration, hope and faith gets crushed again.
Report comment to moderator
This was one of the most informative and amusing threads I’ve read! Right off, StuBob tells us to just wait and see, and sure enough, the Bush bashing begins. If you recall when Reagan died his wife commented that she was surprised at how many people turned out and how well-loved he was. GWB probably has many years to go (man knows not his time, so don’t hold me to that prediction), but I agree that history will see GWB in a different light than the liberals here see him. In fact, I predict in ten years those who rail against him now will commend him for having the guts to face our enemy head on.
Then Victoria wrote: Rdean…You need a vacation.” I burst out laughing. Well said, certainly after those underground hairdresser comments. Her post at No. 67 is also dead on. Things will change when the heart of man changes. It requires change within. You can’t legislate the Kingdom of God. Government can never give you what the Word can give you. No party, not Democrats, not Republicans, not independents, can save you.
Whatever you call the Civil War or the War Between the States, it was indeed about states rights for the Southerners. It was about the preservation of the Union for Lincoln. But I submit to you that it was about ending slavery in the USA for God. God controls history, not man, and Christ is the driving force in that history.
Report comment to moderator
NJL
Do you find it funny that women need to go in hiding to get a haircut? Or is funny that Rdean uses this as an example of how the surge has not worked in Baghdad. Neither are funny since both point to the lack of civil society and the irresponsibility of the US gov’t to maintain order after invading an other country.
As for GWB, he will be remembered for his errors in the larger strategy of combating the criminal behaviour of certain religious fanatics. He will be remembered for his failure to eliminate al-Queada and the failure to eliminate the Taliban as a political force. Iraq will be remembered as a unnecessary quagmire which took away the resources needed to stabilize Pakistan and Afghanistan. A complete failure in the geo-political game.
Report comment to moderator
#64: President Bush did not hold a gun to anyones head to join the military. There is no forced draft.
You are so wrong. When people signed up to get Bin Laden, you know, the guy actually behind the attack on the US, and then were suddenly shipped off to Iraq for who knows what, they are most certainly being forced.
You guys can read and write, obviously, since you are on this blog. Do you truly and honestly believe that Iraq was behind 9/11? Even though the president and Cheney and Rice have publicly stated they never, ever made a connection between Iraq and 9/11? If not from this administration, where did that idea come from? And why Iraq? And why are we in Iraq? And please, get real, none of this WMD or get Sadam. There are worse dictators in the world than Sadam was. The people of Iraq don’t want us there. Do you believe it’s ok for this government to force democracy on other countries at the point of a gun?
I would like to see the neo cons on this site come out and honestly say:
It’s ok to invade other countries that didn’t attack us first because….
It’s ok to force other countries to become a democracy because….
We didn’t need to get Bin Laden because….
Getting Sadam before Bin Laden was more important because….
Report comment to moderator
Whatever you call the Civil War or the War Between the States, it was indeed about states rights for the Southerners.
It was the Second American Revolution. For Lincoln, war was the march toward abolition and the disgrace of Secession. But the war turned into something much more — the very social revolution that Lincoln initially resisted. It was a revolution that destroyed the Southern rural vision of formally equal and independent white men, whose equality and independence was made possible by the bondage of blacks. It was a revolution that destroyed the other Southern vision of superior aristocrats ruling virtuously over a grateful people, slave and free, black and white. The revolution installed in America a different democracy of free labor that had been denounced before the war as a rabble of infidels, free lovers and panderers, the “heels” rather than the “head” of society. It was a revolution inspired by Jefferson’s principles, and enabled by Lincoln’s movement toward those principles in his self-transformation from a Henry Clay Whig to a national leader who found himself pulled more and more toward Jefferson and to the promise of “a new birth of freedom.”
FYNE JR. #46 mistakenly asserts: liberals and democrats are not fond of Lincoln. . . Look at any of the latest black conferences . . . bashing Lincoln is all the rage.
It is true that liberals and democrats trace their historical vision of democracy to the very flawed Jacksonian democracy rather than through the Whigs and Republicans. But that’s misleading. Lincoln himself described the political parties as brawling drunks who ended up wearing each other’s overcoats. Lincoln struggled to hold a middle ground that was shifting left, but he did more and more embrace the principles of Thomas Jefferson.
Unfortunately, Lincoln was murdered before he could implement his ideas about democracy after the war. Liberals and leftists love Lincoln. After all, he effected the single greatest confiscation of private property in history! He couldn’t have been all bad. Libertarians rank him as one of the worst presidents.
What FYNE JR calls “bashing” by black historians really is their telling of the story of how the actions of black people during the civil war made emancipation inevitable, regardless of Lincoln’s Proclamation.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop;
Quite clearly the vision of a republic of virtue led by virtuous men was lost by the end of the Civil War, but the end result was not the rule of the rabble so feared by the virtuous men rather it was the rule of the business class who ruled according to their interests rarely with a hint of paternalism or virtue.
In addition, if one holds to your view the First Revolution is not really a really but rather a secession. The landowning class of the Thirteen Colonies seceded from the landowning class of Great Britain. Those who hold this view note the frequency by which landowners needed to limited the Revolution as not to include more equity, freeing the slaves, etc. They feared the masses, the rabble, and the mob. Thomas Paine soon lost favour with the many of the founding fathers for his radicalism.
Report comment to moderator
HRW — I like the way you put it. The American Revolution was the war of succession. The Civil War was the american revolution. Brilliant. That’s fairly close to my view, but not quite. The American Revolution was a democratic revolution even if it didn’t go very far. The slave republic wasn’t democratic, but it did contain elements of a democracy, so that by the 1830’s as de Tocqueville reported, most Americans averred their country was both a republic and a democracy, even if that meant “government by the worst.” Democracy is a matter of norms and expectations, not just institutional forms. Lincoln advanced the revolution by establishing government of the people, by the people and for the people, which was embodied in the Reconstruction Amendments. The business class did take over, yet the revolution had created realities previously thought unimaginable — which both Jefferson and Lincoln had called the world’s best hope. 140 years later, the realities and possibilites of that hope still inspire and worry us.
Report comment to moderator
For all the rhetoric on this thread, no one seriously attempted to dis prove Michael Barone’s basic three views that:
Lesson One: Just about no mission is impossible for the United States military.
Lesson Two: Societies can be more easily transformed from the bottom up than the top down.
Lesson Three: It doesn’t pay to bet against America.
Report comment to moderator
HRW: No, I find RDean’s apoplexy funny. I feel sorry for both of you that you actually have an expectation that people in a war zone should fare well. It’s reasonably peaceful where I sit, and I suspect where you sit, too. War zones are not like that, and it is unrealistic of you to expect them to be so. It is unrealistic of you to expect a war to go according to plan. I realize you grew up with movies and expect everything to work out in 2 hours, but life isn’t like that. War sure isn’t.
We are not in Vietnam. We are not even in WWII. We are up against an enemy that has to be fought on many fronts, but the operative word here is “fought” — the verb “to fight.” Because that’s what we have to do, militarily, diplomatically, spiritually, any way you can think of fighting them. After you’ve sat on a park bench consoling a total stranger whose brother was incinerated, after you pass the trees dedicated to victims of 9/11 on your way to the supermarket, when they’ve attacked you up there in Toronto or Montreal, come see me, and we’ll talk.
What you all have to remember is that the US (not Canada) started as an agrarian society, and with developments in machinery, etc., life changed — as it continues to change. You are all quick to talk about the “rabble.” There are elites today (usually liberals) who think the same way and look down on the people. Those elites didn’t get it back in the day, and they don’t get it today. It is interesting to me that the items you picked up on in my post are the little “political” items. You really fail to understand that all of this is about God and what he wants. You not only won’t address it, you can’t.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner at #54: The problem I have is that I think the administration already knew much of what came out later. They knew that Iraq was not a serious threat to us, and they knew that there were no significant stockpiles of WMD. Or at best, they knew they didn’t know for sure and actively thwarted efforts to find out.
I think the real motive behind the war always was to try to create a US-friendly regime in the heart of the Arab world, and I actually happen to agree that was a good idea. But I cannot get past the fact that they did not have confidence in the people’s ability to understand and support such an effort, so they chose to sell it to us as what would be a short and relatively inexpensive war necessary to remove a threat.
And despite their denials now, they DID rhetorically try to link Iraq and 9/11 in people’s minds. They never quite said “Saddam was behind 9/11,” so they now can plausibly deny having made that connection. But they said a lot of things intended to imply it.
It’s not the war itself I’m opposed to, it’s that we (the people, the Congress, the UN) all based our decisions and opinions about it on a false story cooked up to make it palatable.
Report comment to moderator
Correction: The above is a response to #55, not #54.
PS on it too: Then once we were too deep in to get out, the rhetoric became “Forget about trying to fix blame for getting us there, we’re there now and have to stay.” In other words, don’t worry about why I set your house on fire, help me throw water on it.
Report comment to moderator
Lester at #28: Here in the South, we understand the truth: the Civil War was not about slavery. It was about preventing a just secession from the United States. Lincoln couldn’t stand that a group of free American states had had enough with its current government and chose to form their own.
A secession the Southern states wanted so they could continue to own human beings as property.
You can’t spin that away, Lester. And I’m a Son of the South too. My great-great-grandfather fought in the Confederate army.
Saying the war was about states’ rights is one of those obfuscations that’s technically true but avoids admitting the real point.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth, you have no clue what I’m talking about, so don’t try to explain it.
I would like to see a neo liberal actually make a coherent arguement that is original. I mean an arguement that doesn’t sound like a rehearsed paragraph memorised from some daily kos memo. Everytime an Iraq war subject comes up, no matter what it’s about, all I have to do is see the name of the poster, and without reading the post, I can almost recite their following comment word for word. From RDean to Lon Chainey (Hamachitwo), and then the usual suspects (Anlir and scroop moth). It’s not even that the arguements are really bad (and they are). It’s that they’re not even arguements per se. It’s a bunch of people reading a bunch of scripts mentally collected over the years. It doesn’t matter how outdated the script is, they will recite it as their answer. It doesn’t matter that the most elementary glance at a historical record drives their “points” to dust. The script for them is always handy. They no of no other way to function.
Sad, but simply pathetic.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt
Perhaps no one has addressed these points because they are vast generalizations which are difficult to counteract in the type of format we are constrained by. Suffice to say
1. Without the soaring confidence I agree, the US military is capable of just about anything but I would limit my confidence to war and standard warfare at that. No standard military is capable of defeating an unconventional enemy by military means.
2. As an anarchist I agree, decentralization is the best strategy, however, this would lead to a trilateral state completely different than pre-war Iraq. Is this the end goal? If it was it could’ve been established alot quciker.
3. I don’t bet but I will never bet against an unconventional force facing a conventional army unless this army was willing to incur collateral damages heretofore unknown. At the present time I still think America is to civilized for that.
I didn’t disprove the three points but as you can see I don’t necessarily disagree with them. However my response should indicate I’m not sure if these three points are relevant.
Report comment to moderator
NJL
Baghdad is not a war zone — mission accomplished remember. The insurgency supposedly has been contained and is diminishing as the surge is working. These are the standard claims. So why are hairdressing shops being firebombed and haircuts now taking place in people’s basement — the increase in Islamic fundementalism. And this increase is a direct result of the chaos that ensued after the invasion. People want security and if the occupying power won’t or can’t provide they go elsewhere. Religious fundementalism offers not only security but purpose. Failed states and chaos are the perfect breeding ground for this.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, I note you don’t discuss God’s ultmate plan in your latest post to me. Tell me how Iraq, bin Laden, all the mess in the Middle East relates to God’s plan.
Report comment to moderator
Fyne Jr. – 81
You said it well, BRAVO!
Report comment to moderator
NJL
Canada also started as an agrarian society aided by a resource based economy. After the conquest, the Loyalist began a tradition of peace, order and good government. A tradition which is elitist but evolving since its based on community standards, hence the elites and rabble lead each other. Although our histories differ the same current is evidenced in American history, the elites lead and hold onto power yet give in to the rabble in order to maintain their rule and order. From the 1970s onward, the elite is attempting to roll back the concessions made from 1933. Bush’s presidency is probably the most blantant in this terms and it remains to be see if the give and take will go in another direction.
Report comment to moderator
NJL
They don’t and if they do, I wouldn’t know since I make no claim to discern the mind of God. Those of you who make this claim are rather bold and far more confident than me. As I discuss what I know and am able to know, I don’t discuss God’s plan. Ockham’s razor, Hume’s fork — call it what you will but its a sceptical approach.
Report comment to moderator
Fyne “81
Every debate becomes scripted once it has been performed. The rest is all reruns. Each side is predictable – the only change is when events prove one side right. Prior to this occurring, the only way to win the argument is the form and logic of your argumentation sills.
Report comment to moderator
Fyne Jr at #81: Hmm. I read your original post (#46) and what I saw was that you are basing a judgment on “liberals and Democrats” on some unspecified bashing of Lincoln that allegedly goes on at “black conferences.”
You give us nothing to understand just what in the world you’re talking about. Which black conferences? What specific criticisms?
Nor do you offer any justification for equating “black conferences” with all liberals or Democrats.
For the record: I’m a Democrat. I am probably a “liberal” by your definition, although I consider myself centrist. I think Lincoln was one of the four or five best Presidents the country has had. So don’t lump me in with your generalizations.
What I find especially amusing is that you gave us some vague ad hominem generalization with no specifics that sounded like it could have come straight from Michael Savage, Scroop replied with a good grasp of history and context, and then you criticized him for not being “original.”
Thanks for the chuckle.
Report comment to moderator
I’m more than glad to admit that the so-called “surge” has borne some pretty significant fruit, but it does beg certain kinds of questions. For instance, why not this strategy sooner? That must reflect badly on the internal decision-making of the administration. Bully for them that they changed their minds, but the fact remains they had it wrong before (and often).
Points two and three of Barone deserve a little more attention.
The third point is typical political puffery. One can prove just about anything with the maical use of the word “some”. After all some conservatives wanted to nuke Iran. Some conservatives — I’m sure I read it on LGF — want to torture, et cetera. Some is a non-starter.
The second point, however, is more interesting and deserves more exploration. What exactly does it mean when we equip Sunni militias? Is that the reason for the decrease in violence that Petreaus reported? Or is it, as others have thought, the Iranians backing down the Shiite militias?
The larger mistake we all make in such armchair commentary is forgetting that there are multiple players in Iraq, that it is no longer 2003 when it was just us v. Iraqis. This asks for a subtleness in diplomacy that is difficult at the best — a game the earlier, ideologically-driven players in Washington were rather obviously hesitant to or perhaps even incapable of playing.
Report comment to moderator
FYNE JR Scroop Moth, you have no clue what I’m talking about, so don’t try to explain it.
What’s that, an order? Don’t flatter yourself that anybody here is interested in knowing or interpreting your mind or guessing what you mean when you post words here. Nobody has shown such a purpose on this thread, at any rate. But you would have to be a blithering idiot to think you can say . . .at any of the latest black conferences . . . bashing Lincoln is all the rage and not be challenged by the attentive reader.
I think I’ll continue to try to explain ideas that relate to topics which interest me — and use your posts as I see fit.
It’s not even that the arguements are really bad (and they are). It’s that they’re not even arguements per se.
Hmm. I love to hear a wingnut sing.
Report comment to moderator
You must be SINGING to yourself again!
Report comment to moderator
HARRIS: What exactly does it mean when we equip Sunni militias?
Initially, it means that our soldiers are having to learn to suppress their revenge. See today’s NYTimes “Feeding the Hand that Bit You.” The decision of Sunnis to ally with the US is apparently viewed with some suspicion by our troops, who wonder if they are simply being “used” by the same people who recently were blowing up their buddies. The larger meaning, I think, is that Bush has turned Iraq into an emerging regime of radical Shiites, so the Sunni are taking some temporary shelter in the American presence.
Report comment to moderator
It’s not even that the arguements are really bad (and they are). It’s that they’re not even arguements per se.
Yes, the singing is me. FYNE JR is making a very good argument.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Scroop – 94
Scroop Moth posts – 94 – “Yes, the singing is me. FYNE JR is making a very good argument.”
How right you are Scroop, Fyne Jr. is making an excellent argument….LOL It’s those outdated scripts you guys recite,………..LOL -
Report comment to moderator
I’m one of the biggest reciters of the Bible on this blog.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt: For all the rhetoric on this thread, no one seriously attempted to dis prove Michael Barone’s basic three views that:
Lesson One: Just about no mission is impossible for the United States military.
Lesson Two: Societies can be more easily transformed from the bottom up than the top down.
Lesson Three: It doesn’t pay to bet against America.
Has anyone really been trying to “disprove” those things? I think they’re pretty right-on. Where I’d quibble is in how applicable they are to the current situation. But I’ll take them one at a time for you.
1. I agree!
2. I agree!
3. I agree!
On number two, though, I’d add this caveat: That’s precisely the reason I and a lot of others were skeptical of the “regime change” part of the mission.
Democracies, almost by definition, are born from the will of the people and rise up to the top. I am unaware of any that have been successfully imposed by an outside force.
People cite Germany and Japan after WWII, but Germany already was a Democracy. They were under a dictatorship only after Hitler, once having been elected, seized dictatorial power. The people of Germany were for the most part quite happy to be rid of him. Japan had been largely democratic, though with a powerful Emperor, until the military seized much control of the government in the early 1930s. After WWII, the country ratified a new Constitution enshrining democratic principles.
Iraq, by contrast, had never been a democracy. It had been part of the Ottoman Empire for centuries until World War I. Then the British put a monarchy in place because they were not able to govern it effectively. Then a military coup unseated the monarchy, and then later the Baath party took control and held it until Saddam Hussein was deposed.
Trying to force a democratic government into a country that had no memory of ever having had such a thing was not the best idea in the world. It may yet work, but it will not be easy.
Report comment to moderator
The devil recited Scripture – the devil quoted it to Jesus, and Jesus warned the devil in verse 12
9 And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:
10 For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee:
(the devil is quoting Psalms 91:11 above)
11 And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
(the devil quotes Psalms 91:12 in the verse above)
12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
13 And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season
Luke 4
Report comment to moderator
The problem with the devil, although he could recite Scripture and tempted Christ, and much earlier wanted to be equal to God – he loved himself, he wants to separate as many people as he can from the LORD Jesus Christ –
One can either be won to the LORD Christ Jesus or the devil, its a choice, or the choice will be made for you when you die –
Report comment to moderator
If Mitt Romney were registered he would jump in about here to say something like, “Don’t be talkin’ schmack about Jesus’ brother, Satan.”
Report comment to moderator
So … Scroop Moth is Satan?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, Trying to force a democratic government into a country that had no memory of ever having had such a thing was not the best idea in the world. It may yet work, but it will not be easy.
Actually, MacArthur practically wrote the Democratic Constitution of Japan after WWII. Germany’s modern Constititution was heavily influenced by the Allies. Many Americans at the time argued that both of these autocratic countries were incapable of modern. republican government. Since WWI both of these countries have been economically very successful and politically decent citizens among world nations.
In the case of Iraq, its present Constititution was written mainly by its own leaders, though under the watchful eye of the U.S. Its people, while sectarian, are gradually creating a republican nation. It is easy to be cynical about this and point out the negatives. We probably won’t know for about ten years whether or not the Iraq project will be successful.
One thing for sure is that the naysayers and doomsayers in the U.S. today are very similar to those in the nation during both the Revolutionary and Civil wars. With Michael Barone, it is probably not a good idea to bet against the American nation when it seriously takes on a project.
Report comment to moderator
Lesson One: Just about no mission is impossible for the United States military.
Iraq proves the reverse! Iraq refutes the neo-con theory that Bush wanted to demonstrate to the world. This theory was that a small, aggressive, and highly technical American military, by surgically removing a dictator, could bestow democracy upon a society and thereby make it safe for America. Mission accomplished! Iraq was supposed to constitute a warning to oppresive regimes all over the world to submit to the US, because the US could easily enforce its demands. Rumsfeld’s military had to be small and affordable to demonstrate this principle. As things turned out, however, Iraq demonstrated that accomplishing a mission of American will is, if not utterly impossible, then so inconceivably costly that America will never try to do it again. Bush has emboldened our potential adversaries by showing them how hard it is for us to accomplish our missions.
Lesson Two: Societies can be more easily transformed from the bottom up than the top down.
The irony of this! The world’s greatest democracy must relearn, at the cost of 3,900 troops and 28,000 casualties, that Democracy is never a gift bestowed by benevolent, farseeing presidents, but must always be fought for, and succeeds and survives only when it is rooted in the lives and expectations of generations. Duh!
Lesson Three: It doesn’t pay to bet against America.
It’s payed to bet against the dollar. We are so broke from this war that it may continue to pay. Especially, if Republicans indulge their desire for expulsions of Mexicans and take only small numbers of “good” immigrants, such as engineers and seasonal pickers, while excluding the waves of “bad” immigrants from across the Rio. It pays for oil producers to bet against the US.
Report comment to moderator
>BLesson One: Just about no mission is impossible for the United States military.BBLesson Two: Societies can be more easily transformed from the bottom up than the top down.BBLesson Three: It doesn’t pay to bet against America.BIPride comes before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.<I
Report comment to moderator
#103: Yes, but my point is that Germany and Japan both had had democratic governments in their recent histories. The concept was familiar to their people and while the specifics post-war were new, the concepts were not.
Iraq isn’t analagous to Germany and Japan. It’s never been anything but a dictatorship of one form or another.
Report comment to moderator
Man, that totally did not come out the way I typed it. Let me try again.
Lesson One: Just about no mission is impossible for the United States military.
One word . . . VietNam
Lesson Two: Societies can be more easily transformed from the bottom up than the top down.
Societies cannot be transformed easily either way. Change always comes about over time, with hard work and a lot of resistance. The only one who likes change is a wet baby.
Lesson Three: It doesn’t pay to bet against America.
I’m sure the same was said about the Roman Empire. History is still being written. Let’s not be presumptuous and keep our minds, ears, eyes and hearts humbly open.
“Pride comes before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.”
L
Report comment to moderator
Lesson Three: It doesn’t pay to bet against America.
The problem is, Lesson Three is worthless alone. Does it pay to bet on America? Iraq has demonstrated to the world that the allies were right not to join the vast coalition of the willing and, if they did, to get out as soon as possible. Iraq and the rest of Bush’s foreign disasters and mismanagement show the world that it has little to gain from America’s objectives in the world nor from the means America employs to meet them. The challenge of empire is to make subjects happy to see its success. Mr. Bush has made the world want American failure. Even if the world doesn’t oppose us, we lose if they don’t want to cooperate with us. The next time Bush or any other American president sets out to “go it alone” the world will not place its bets on our success.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth: Many are willing to allow someone else to the do their fighting for them. Those who didn’t join the coalition are profiting and will profit from the eventual success that Iraq will be.
They may be publicly verbalizing a wish for America to fail, but privately they are scared to death of what that failure would mean. They are more than willing to let us pay the price for that which they personally are unwilling to fight for and will benefit from.
As an example, while there hasn’t been a terrorist attack on American soil in years, the truth is that terrorist attacks all over Europe have diminished as well. By not joining the coalition, and publicly trashing American policy, they have enjoyed the benefits of our involvment.
They would be lily livered, surrender monkeys if the U.S. didn’t have the guts to take it to terrorists. And while many may say that there was little AlQaeda involvement in Iraq prior to the toppling of Saddam, no one can doubt that AQ understood it to be a proverbial drawing of the line in the sand which became the front line to fight of the War on terror. And AQ understood that as thousands of AQ fighters swarmed into Iraq from other ME countries and even Europe itself.
Again, the rest of the world is benefitting from our sacrifice.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not saying things are hopeless. I’m optimistic that another president can get the world on our side again. But the cowboy president has taken some hits, and Tombstone doesn’t think he can shoot straight any more.
Iraq had little or nothing to do with our war on terror, Metanoia. Saddam’s Iraq was a firewall against al-Qaeda.
Europe’s police war against terrorists has accomplished a lot more than Bush’s wars of invasion and occupation, which have actually cost us more than terrorism has.
The 90,000 to 500,000 Iraqi people who have died as a consequence of our war have not benefited, nor have the millions of refugees. Nor have we. The only people who have benefited are military contractors, oil producers, and Republicans who clung to power in 2004 by means of intimidation.
Report comment to moderator
Combating terror is not a war but a criminal police matter. Increased cooperation between Europe, North America and other nations has increased our ability to limit terrorist actions. Since its a criminal activity terrorism will not cease entirely and needs constant watch and containment. In Afghanistan, a military victory plus military led counter insurgency actions was/is needed and America’s allies (NATO) are there especially the Dutch and Canadians (both of whom recognized Iraq as folly and not part of the terrorists network) who are in the most volatile region. Even in Afghanistan, the issue is law and order along the border with Pakistan not a conventional war. Failed states and chaos allow for greater criminal activity; invading Iraq created chaos and allow criminals to thrive.
Report comment to moderator
Leavitt (103),
You have no understanding of the history of post-Tokugawa Japan either before WWII or after. The history of Japan and that of Iraq bear few similarities. Most democratic institutions in Japan have histories that date back at least to the 1870s. Even during the war, Japan was probably as much of a democracy as the US was thirty years earlier.
Arguing that Japan’s democracy depends on the post-war American occupation is a silly as supposing that American democracy owes itself to Pearl Harbor. Before you speak, you should study Japanese history rather than simply accepting WWII-era anti-Japanese propaganda without question.
Report comment to moderator
Regarding the post in general, only the fringe Kucinich Left has ever hoped for defeat in Iraq. This group is vanishingly small in numbers and in influence, and yet conservatives are obsessed with them.
Centrists and mainstream liberals have merely questioned the opportunity costs of our Iraq policy. No one should have doubted that we could eventually overwhelm the terrorists. But there is ample reason to doubt whether a massive military solution in Iraq serves our nation’s long-term economic and political interests.
Moreover, the “pacification” of Iraq has also resulted from further segregation along ethnic lines. Now that Baghdad has become a predominantly Shia city, the reasons behind much of the intra-ethnic violence have abated.
As for the Lincoln comparison, I agree. Lincoln’s attack upon the Confederate States of America was illegal and immoral just as Bush’s attack on Iraq was illegal and immoral.
Report comment to moderator
I see the liberals and Democrats are still mad that when they tried to cheat in Florida in 2000 they couldn’t do it. They just can’t take losing.
And then there is Murtha and earmarks. Is that because of Bush too?
Report comment to moderator
“The 90,000 to 500,000 Iraqi people who have died as a consequence of our war…”
Hmmmmmm…. those figures seem slightly inflated… Where are you getting them?
Report comment to moderator
Firm figures, as firm as the figures from a Democratically controlled election precinct.
Report comment to moderator
Al Qaeda did more to damage themselves than the coalition ever could. If Al Qaeda had not brutalized their own ideological cousins, they would have been aided by their brethren instead of having their positions leaked to coalition forces by the same. Fortunately, Islam is a very unforgiving religion which, for all practical purposes, gave the kuffaar the appearance of the lesser of two evils.
Report comment to moderator
Make It Man at #115: The minimum number of civilian casualties, based on documented cases, was a bit more than 87,000 as of a few weeks ago. (Chart
There have been a variety of estimates taking the number of known and confirmed incidents and using assumptions about how many more might have happened that aren’t in those documented numbers, and those range into the hundreds of thousands. But none of those are provable.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt (19): Many Americans don’t understand the cruel necessity of just wars.
Frank: Too rich.
We claimed the need to invade Iraq to defend ourselves against Saddam’s WMD threat.
When it turned out the “threat” wasn’t there after all, shazam, we were there to liberate Iraqis from their murderous dictator.
Even under point 1 (WMD threat), Just War Doctrine requires the threat to be either current or imminent. Claims that Saddam “desires to restart a nuclear weapons program” don’t meet the requirement.
And there is nothing about Just War Doctrine that justifies the invasion of foreign nations to save their people from their tyrants.
Regardless, the “justifications” for the war are gone. There are no WMD, and Saddam has been deposed. But as we have had troops in Europe for over 60 years and in Korea for 50, you can bet our grandkids and great-grandkids will be pulling tours in Baghdad, keeping a tenuous “peace.”
Unless and until the American people finally say enough is enough, that is.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt (32): Lincoln first fought the war to defend the Union …
Frank: Not unlike a man beating his estranged wife do defend the marriage?
The Colonies divorced themselves from Britain, and we celebrate this every 4th of July. But when Lincoln played the role of King George III not even a hundred years later … the divorce-seeking south was in the wrong?
Whatever happened to freedom of association?
Report comment to moderator
Lester (37): Even calling it the “Civil War” is wrong. The South never wanted to control the government. They wanted to secede – a perfectly constitutional and logical right that Lincoln, for all his wisdom, simply couldn’t grasp.
Frank: Hear, hear. Mencken said it best:
Report comment to moderator
Frank – 119
Yes there is a justification to stop those like Hitler in WW 2 – The US could have stepped into WW2 earlier in Europe, and if they had many Jews would have been saved from Hitler’s extermination camps from that famous tyrant Hitler –
Just as kids gather together in the school playground to stop the ‘big bully’ who beats up on others, the bigger playground is the WORLD, and we as Americans are gathered, HOLDING TOGETHER to stop those who BULLY others, and that includes Israel, and anyone else who thinks they can intimidate the USA into backing down. We learned as kids in schools across the USA how to stand TOGETHER to stop those who want to harm others, we are stronger as a force standing together, than the BULLY –
So when you plunder on with your remarks about tyrants, we understand who they are, and those who SHIRK their DUTY, hide in the corner, pretending no one is crying for help – The US is not made up of a lot of babies who want to protect just their own ‘assets’ but have a bigger heart for those who are lost and begging for help – We learned this as kids ‘on a playground’ we saw it in the eyes of our fathers and mothers during war time, we saw the faces of those who protected this country, especially on the 4th of July, when we remember just how much freedom means, and how little tyrants need to be shoved back where they belong -
Report comment to moderator
Victoria (64): President Bush did not hold a gun to anyones head to join the military. There is no forced draft.
Frank: The US military is stretched verrrrry thin. The Army has had to lower its recruiting standards to meet its goals. And Air Force airmen are being sent to Ft. Dix for 2 weeks of ground combat training before being sent to do patrol duty in Iraq.
No, there is no draft … for now. But if/when the feces hits the blower (or when our leaders try to convince us that it has), with most of our ground forces — and much of our National (?!) Guard — are stuck nation building in the Middle East, a draft will be virtually guaranteed.
And you and your ilk will support it all the way. “Render unto Caesar,” eh?
Report comment to moderator
Lesson One: False
America’s military has not been able to find Osama Bin Ladin. Bloodshed continues in Iraq. Our “mission accomplished” has turned into a decades long project with no end in sight.
Lesson Two: False
Japan was engineered from a top down strategy. So was Germany.
Lesson Three: False
Oil companies have been made rich betting that America would not be able to overcome its thirst for fossil fuels. Wall street tycoons have made millions betting the economy would suffer a downturn. Many have invested in other currencies expecting the American dollar to be devalued. So far they are reveling in newly acquired wealth.
Report comment to moderator
Frank,
Frank you can use a ‘blow horn’ with all your scare tactics, they haven’t worked in the past, and they are tiresome at best –
Use your ‘BLOWER’ wherever you can find those who will listen. Your rhetoric hits the fan and spreads a smell just as you describe, but no one stands in front to listen, so ALL IS LOST…..LOL
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I said, “And you and your ilk will support a draft all the way.”
Right?
Report comment to moderator
Frank you say all sorts of things.
And you can hide in the corner, ‘protecting your stuff’ – isn’t that the Libetarian way? LOL
Report comment to moderator
Harris (90): I’m more than glad to admit that the so-called “surge” has borne some pretty significant fruit, but it does beg certain kinds of questions. For instance, why not this strategy sooner? …
Frank: “Rummy,” is the answer. And hey, I don’t disagree, but I recently read an American Conservative piece by Andrew Bacevich in which he argued in the other direction. To wit: If the surge is working, why not continue it? Why draw it down now?
Petraeus and his boss evidently view it as highly politic to draw down the troop surge and make the average schmoe think that, hey, maybe the end is in sight after all.
Report comment to moderator
It’s called “non-intervention,” Victoria. Libertarian, Taft/Goldwater Republican, I don’t care what you want to call it.
I will counsel my sons to take up arms against invaders any day of the week. Heck, I’ll join ‘em if they’ll take me.
But there is no constitutional or biblical authority for Caesar to conscript my sons to depose foreign tyrants who have neither atttacked us nor pose an imminent threat to us.
“He that meddles in a quarrel not his own is like a man that taketh a dog by the ears.” ~ Proverbs 26:17 In my view, that would include invading a nation in order to purportedly depose their tyrannical leaders.
National defense, YES. Foreign militarist intervention, NO.
Report comment to moderator
So, Victoria, let me ask you, then:
Would you support a return to the military draft?
Report comment to moderator
Why would you ask such a question? We don’t need a draft so why have one? There is no reason to get all bleaked off over something we don’t need -
Report comment to moderator
Frank
Have you changed your mind about Ron Paul? Are you now for Mitt Romney?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria (31): Why would you ask such a question? We don’t need a draft so why have one?
Frank: Getting a straight answer from you like pulling teeth from a chicken.
Why do you answer a question with another question? What are you, a Jewish grandmother?
Or do you simply have difficulties dealing with hypotheticals?
What kind of reply is “We don’t need a draft so why have one”? Please re-read my remarks at (132), which describe the present “stretched-thinnedness” of US ground forces.
Because I’m a patient fellow, I’ll ask you yet again … this way:
If/when the day comes that they say we do “need” a draft, will you support it?
I suspect you would … although you presently won’t admit such publicly. And I suspect your support for the draft (if/when the time comes) will be based on a faulty understanding of Jesus’s words, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.”
Well, yea or nay?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria (132): Have you changed your mind about Ron Paul? Are you now for Mitt Romney?
Frank: No. And no.
(See how it’s done?)
Report comment to moderator
That was on a Friday, Victoria. The following Monday, a “Pentagon spokesman” denied any need for a draft … at present. But the fact remains, our ground forces are currently in desparate shape, and when the caca hits the fan … (Well, I’ve covered this ground already.)
Report comment to moderator
Theo — You nail Lessons One and Three, and you make a strong point about Lesson Two, which is that two major democracies in history were instituted “from the top down” under the authority of occupying powers. But you have to allow a footnote, which is that, in the major example, democracy in America did come to us from the top down. The American Revolution and the sages of Philadelphia did not create a democracy. Our founding contained elements of democracy going back to 17th century English popular radicalism. Nevertheless, democracy in America arose from the people through a long and difficult struggle over three generations. Bush was correct when he said the capacity for liberty and democracy are not inherited in the genes. He was wrong when he thought liberty and democracy didn’t have to come from the past in the form of social norms and expectations. Japan and Germany had a long tradition of parliament, free cities, councils, electors, unions, chapters, Landtage. Iraq had tribal shieks, Ottoman satraps, and dictators.
Report comment to moderator
Correction: democracy in America did not come to us from the top down.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth – Japan and Germany were certainly in a much different situation than Iraq. I assume we realized that before we invaded Iraq.
It was unethical for us to attack Iraq. In a decade or two, we might be glad that we did so but that does not justify the decision to invade. There is also the possibility that the decision will continue to haunt us for the next century and even longer. We attacked a sovereign nation without adequate justification. The rest of the world saw this. If we believe in democracy then we should recognize that the world was voting against an Iraq invasion.
Report comment to moderator
Frank in Phoenix – 133
I answered you, …… whining won’t get another answer -
Report comment to moderator
Theo Godwyn (138): It was unethical for us to attack Iraq. … We attacked a sovereign nation without adequate justification. The rest of the world saw this.
Frank: Not only that, we have for the first time in our history asserted a “right” to wage preventive wars — wars of aggression where there is no imminent threat, for the sole purpose of preventing a possible, future, “someday” attack against us.
Just War Doctrine and international law recognize a nation’s right to wage pre-emptive war against an imminent — or clear and present — military threat. I.e., a fleet of battleships, aircraft carriers and troop transports steaming toward you. But attacking a nation because they may attack or pose a threat someday — even while they pose no threat at present — is illegal under international law and Just War Doctrine.
But hey, that’s just for other countries! We’re the United States of Godblessamerica!
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Really? Perhaps I missed it then. Where did you answer my question of whether or not you would support a draft, if/when it should be reinstated?
All I think I’ve seen so far is a two-bit tap-dance. But as I said, maybe I missed your answer. Please point it out to me. “Let your yea be yea …”
Report comment to moderator
Theo Godwyn (138): It was unethical for us to attack Iraq. … We attacked a sovereign nation without adequate justification. The rest of the world saw this.
Frank: Not only that, we have for the first time in our history asserted a “right” to wage preventive wars — wars of aggression where there is no imminent threat, for the sole purpose of preventing a possible, future, “someday” attack against us.
Just War Doctrine and international law recognize a nation’s right to wage pre-emptive war against an imminent — or clear and present — military threat. I.e., a fleet of battleships, aircraft carriers and troop transports steaming toward you. But attacking a nation because they may attack or pose a threat someday — even while they pose no threat at present — is illegal under international law and Just War Doctrine.
But hey, that’s just for other countries! We’re the United States of Godblessamerica! …
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Perhaps it is merely the rule of our law that we seek to uphold — nay, to impose — throughout the world.
Arrogance, indeed.
Report comment to moderator
Frank – 140
Try reading 131 again – LOL, you do love to whine!
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Not whining, dear. Just giving you a public rhetorical spanking.
Like I need to ask my sons every now and then when they come down with a sudden case of the stupids: “Do I need to draw you a line?” Well, okay. Can do:
Victoria (64): There is no forced draft.
Frank (123): No, there is no draft … for now. But if/when the feces hits the blower (or when our leaders try to convince us that it has), with most of our ground forces — and much of our National (?!) Guard — are stuck nation building in the Middle East, a draft will be virtually guaranteed.
And you and your ilk will support it all the way. “Render unto Caesar,” eh?
Victoria (125): Frank you can use a ‘blow horn’ with all your scare tactics, they haven’t worked in the past, and they are tiresome at best – [Dodge #1]
Frank (126): I said, “And you and your ilk will support a draft all the way.”
Right?
Victoria (127): Frank you say all sorts of things.
And you can hide in the corner, ‘protecting your stuff’ – isn’t that the Libetarian way? [Dodge #2]
Frank (130): So, Victoria, let me ask you, then:
Would you support a return to the military draft?
Victoria (131): Why would you ask such a question? We don’t need a draft so why have one? There is no reason to get all bleaked off over something we don’t need – [Dodge #3, clumsily deflecting my simpe and direct question with another question]
Frank (133): Because I’m a patient fellow, I’ll ask you yet again … this way:
If/when the day comes that they say we do “need” a draft, will you support it?
I suspect you would … although you presently won’t admit such publicly. And I suspect your support for the draft (if/when the time comes) will be based on a faulty understanding of Jesus’s words, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.”
Well, yea or nay?
Victoria (139): I answered you, …… whining won’t get another answer – [Dodge #4]
Frank: The record speaks pretty clearly for itself, Victoria. You appear (for some reason) to be extremely uncomfortable (I can almost hear the nervous laughter — “Draft?! Are you nuts?! Ha ha, that’s rich …”) discussing whether or not you would support conscription if/when it is ever reinstated. Perhaps you have sons who will be of draft age in a few more years?
And by the way, if you’d told me, “Gee, Frank, I really don’t know if I would support a draft or not. I haven’t given it much thought,” I would gladly accept that as an honest answer.
But don’t pretend to have answered the question when you clearly have not. You patronize me, and show yourself be be either mistaken (at best) or deceitful (at worst).
Report comment to moderator
FRANK But attacking a nation because they may attack or pose a threat someday — even while they pose no threat at present — is illegal under international law and Just War Doctrine.
True, alas. What next?
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth (146): What next?
Frank: The invasion’s architechts need to be called to account under the rule of law. Either by the people of the United States (best scenario), or by the international community (also acceptable).
I highly recommend you read (and pass along) all three pieces in Beinhart’s “Judgment at Nuremberg” series at HuffPo.
Report comment to moderator
Someone’s candidate, namely Ron Paul is sitting at the bottom of presidential hopefuls – SO….frustration reigns supreme – LOL What a way to spend New Years Eve. LOL
Ron Paul must be sitting with all his “NO” votes all staked up, wondering how this could have ever happened!
Report comment to moderator
I’m not sweating the GOP primaries in the least. I will cast my vote in faith and according to my conscience. The outcome of the event rests in the hands of God.
But I do just love how you keep changing the subject and dodging the question, Bricktoria. What’s this now, Dodge #5?
If you don’t know whether you would support the draft — if it were reinstated, of course — why don’t you simply say so?
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for the read, Frank. Everyone should skim part 3 to get interested and then read all three posts carefully.
Iraq is not just a blunder or an information failure, nor a worthy ambition, nor a tragedy that someday will make the world a better place. It’s a crime.
Sometimes people commit crimes because they think things can be made to turn out OK. When they get caught, violators tend to be angry and defensive. A large part of the narrative of this crime is that the willing accomplices were Christians who recognized that war against Iraq might be good for Israel, which is not just any nation. Doing good to Israel is doing the will of God. As the Book of Joshua shows, such an end justifies any means.
Unfortunately, Christians ignored the stories about letting God do the fighting. God told Joshua to select soldiers who dropped their weapons to take a drink, but Christians scorned the “timidity” and “defeatism” of the skeptics. Christians wouldn’t even wait for the word of the spies to come back. Eager for the glory of the victory that God promises, Christians forgot that the book of Joshua is devoid of poetry.
Report comment to moderator
Anyone see this?
“Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” for 2007
http://www.judicialwatch.org/
1. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)
2. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)
3. Senator Larry Craig (R-ID)
4. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA)
5. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY)
6. Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR)
7. I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby
8. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL)
9. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
10. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV)
Interesting that 4 are presidential candidates (2 republicans and 2 democrats).
Report comment to moderator
Anyone see this?
http://www.judicialwatch.org
“Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” for 2007
1. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)
2. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)
3. Senator Larry Craig (R-ID)
4. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA)
5. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY)
6. Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR)
7. I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby
8. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL)
9. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
10. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV)
4 republicans and 6 democrats
Report comment to moderator
Look at who made the list.
Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians for 2007
http://www.judicialwatch.org
Report comment to moderator
“Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” for 2007
by judicialwatch
1. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)
2. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)
3. Senator Larry Craig (R-ID)
4. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA)
5. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY)
6. Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR)
7. I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby
8. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL)
9. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
10. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV)
Report comment to moderator
Frank
Frank, you do seem to have problems accepting an answer (even if you don’t like it)- to spelling problems. If remembering how to spell my name is difficult for you, I can only imagine all the other more complicated issues that trouble you.
Have a nice evening!
Report comment to moderator
For “the greatest military machine in the history of the world” to take 5 years to bludgeon a fractured and dirt poor country the size of California into semi-submission and to claim some kind of “victory” is pathetic.
It’s certainly not over yet, but the devastating damage to our military’s prestige and our country’s reputation will take many decades to repair.
Meanwhile the oil cos and military contractors are chortling all the way to the bank.
Report comment to moderator
Theo –
Can you suppose why Rep. William Jefferson isn’t on the list?
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth,
Good question. He definitely beats out Larry Craig. I would not consider Larry Craig corrupt. Stupid and hypocritical. Not really corrupt though.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria (152): Frank, you do seem to have problems accepting an answer (even if you don’t like it)-
Frank: Au contraire. It is you that seems to have a problem answering a question straighforwardly. Despite all your protestaions, the record shows it.
That’s Dodge #6.
Victoria (152): … to spelling problems.
Frank: A silly pun. Brick-toria. As in, “Thick as a.”
Victoria (152): If remembering how to spell my name is difficult for you, I can only imagine all the other more complicated issues that trouble you.
Frank: Now there’s an interesting dodge! From simply ducking questions to pretending on-line phsychoanalysis? Oh, you can over-reach, can’t you?! (I won’t count this dodge, as it’s part of the same post … )
Victoria (152): Have a nice evening!
Frank: And a Happy New Year to you, too!
All of 2008 lies ahead of us. Maybe you can let me know sometime if you’ve ever decided whether you’ll support Caesar’s claim on the lives of American sons the next time he asserts it. (Such a simple concept to grasp, I dunno why you’re having such a great difficulty answering it … )
See you at the polls …
Report comment to moderator
HRW: Some debates can be more pragmatic than others. So no, you’re way off. I can understand how some arguements though can sound familiar especially if you find yourself talking to ridiculously unreceptive idiots (think Scroop Moth and SteveG).
Franky Phoenix. Nice to know you finally appreciate a simple answer to a question. Maybe next time you’ll hesitate to belch out crap like “I’ll get to it when I get to it.”
Report comment to moderator
Fyne Jr.,
Be a good boy and go play in traffic.
Report comment to moderator
(Some folks can really bear a grudge … )
Report comment to moderator
Fyne Jr. – 157
Your last sentence is a WINNER!
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Report comment to moderator
Theo —
I agree with you about the meaning of “corruption” and that Larry Craig is not corrupt. You’re right, Jefferson is assuredly far worse. It makes me wonder about the judgments that went into the list. What do you think?
If failure to give other people the information they want about you is “corrupt” then the most egregious instances of that behavior don’t appear on the Judicial Watch list. How come?
Also, does Judicial Watch go back and revise previous lists in light of indictments, convictions, and the outcomes of ethics complaints? Perhaps I’m driving at something. Oh dear, I better not.
Report comment to moderator
#155: I would not consider Larry Craig corrupt.
Poor Larry, victem of a “wide” stance.
Report comment to moderator
Ok, I would really like the neocons to tell us what they expect to outcome in Iraq to be. What would you consider a “win”?
Report comment to moderator
I’m very receptive, FYNE JR. Problem is, you got nuttin’ to pitch. BTW, you just committed a personal attack. I won’t speak for myself, but STEVEG is assuredly not an idiot. Please apologize to him.
Respectfully,
Moth
Report comment to moderator
161
Scroop Moth,
You have a point. It appears that frequent allegations are enough to earn you a spot on the list. I guess the underlying concept is that “where there is smoke, there is fire.”
4 Presidential candidates (including both frontrunners and 2nd place candidates), the House majority leader, and the Senate Majority Leader. Certainly political importance is given extra attention. The level of corruption does not seem to be as important to the list as the level of the politician. Feinstein, Craig, Libby, and Conyers are the only minor players who made the list.
Surprised that Bush or Cheney didn’t make it. Maybe their lame duck status provides them immunity.
There was certainly an effort to seem bipartisan. Perhaps Jefferson would have unbalanced the list towards the democrats and so Craig was chosen instead.
Report comment to moderator
Fyne, Jr
The most repetitive part of any debate is unanswered questions. Instead of addressing and confronting a challenge to their ideas, people tend to do one of three things 1) focus on a side issue and take the debate down the rabbit trail 2)begin an ad hominium attack or accuse the other of ad hominiums which brings you back to number one 3)ignore. Rdean’s question in #163 is an example of an unanswered question which provokes one of these three responses.
Rdean
Your question, although very good, is one that any ideological pure party is unable to answer. The outcome will never be reached, and the ideologues will bring the world down with them. Marxists posited an impossible dream based on a teleological view of history and never reached it since reality got in the way so to will reality get in the way for the neo-conservatives. Coincidentally, both ideologies are based on the proposition that economics is the determining factor in society. They just pick different sides.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth at #164: I won’t speak for myself, but STEVEG is assuredly not an idiot. Please apologize to him.
Aw thanks, but it’s ok. Larry Fyne Jr. amuses me, though he’s not as good without Moe and Curly.
Report comment to moderator
Theo,
It looks like Republicans don’t make the list unless they have immoral sex, are soft on taxes, or are convicted.
If the concept is “smoke” the list ought to make a special mention of the fact that the most corrupt congressman in history (Duke) has been singing to the Feds in jail about matters which which is colleagues were involved, and they aren’t “releasing documents” about themselves to reporters.
Report comment to moderator
Here are the reasons they made the list:
“Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” for 2007
1. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)
• Blocked release of White House records
• Filed false financial disclosure forms with the U.S. Senate
• Campaign contributor exposed as a felon for defrauding investors as part of a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme.
2. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)
• Forced his staff to serve as his personal servants, babysitters, valets and campaign workers while on the government payroll.
3. Senator Larry Craig (R-ID)
• Caught by police attempting to solicit sex in a Minneapolis International Airport men’s bathroom
• Craig was arrested, charged and entered a guilty plea.
4. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA)
• As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s subcommittee on military construction, Feinstein reviewed and awarded military contracts to URS Corporation and Perini, companies then owned by Feinstein’s husband, Richard Blum.
5. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY)
• Billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses incurred by an extramarital affair.
• Police Chief and business partner Bernard Kerik pleaded guilty to accepting a $165,000 from a construction company attempting to land city contracts.
6. Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR)
• 14 ethics complaints and a volley of questions about his integrity
• Use of a nonprofit organization to subsidize his income
• Destruction of state computer files on his way out of the governor’s office. Rather than cooperating with investigators, Huckabee sued the state ethics commission twice and attempted to shut the ethics process down.
7. I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby
• Sentenced to 30 months in prison and fined $250,000 for lying and obstructing the Valerie Plame CIA leak investigation.
• Found guilty of four felonies
• Issued “Executive Clemency” by Pres. Bush.
8. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL)
• Involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko.
• Purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company’s shares.
• Nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.
9. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
• Snuck a $25 million gift to her husband, Paul Pelosi, in a $15 billion Water Resources Development Act recently passed by Congress.
• Under Pelosi’s leadership, House ethics process remains essentially shut down.
10. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV)
• Used his influence in Washington to help a developer, Havey Whittemore, clear obstacles for a profitable real estate deal. As the project advanced, the Times reported, “Reid received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Whittemore.”
• Whittemore also hired one of Reid’s sons (Leif) as his personal lawyer and then promptly handed the junior Reid the responsibility of negotiating the real estate deal with federal officials.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Victoria. Happy new year to you too.
HRW: Unanswered questions is a problem, but it is such a miniscule aspect of what I’m talking about. A repetitive part of an arguement can always be adjusted to put the conversation right back on track. An evasive participant can always be urged to get back on track. Conversation continues. The retards in the comments above are not just refusing to answer questions. It’s like they are reading a script you can tell they wouldn’t remember once they put it down.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know, Theo. If all that is true, more than one of them would be under indictment, in jail, or paying fines. Conversely, how corrupt can they be if they aren’t?
And what’s up with the allegations of false prosecution by the Bush justice department?
Report comment to moderator
FYNE JR. #170:
Don’t you have any manners? I may suffer from a deficient intelligence, but when someone asks me for an apology, I oblige, or at least don’t go out of my way to repeat an offense.
Report comment to moderator
Theo, – 169
The list you posted was put out by the Judicial Watch. You didn’t give reference as to who published this, OR the short paragraph before all those listed.
Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” for 2007
Washington, DC –Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2007 list of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.” The list, in alphabetical order, includes:
NOTE: Theo here is the link:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-announces-list-washington-s-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2007
Report comment to moderator
169 – Theo
The list you posted was put out by the Judicial Watch. You didn’t give reference as to who published this, or the short paragraph before all those listed.
Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” for 2007
Washington, DC –Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2007 list of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.” The list, in alphabetical order, includes:
Report comment to moderator
Perhaps corruption could be measured in dollars. That would give it a numerical amount. Here would be the new rankings. Craig would not be on this list. Any other suggested entries?
The list would appear like this:
1. Feinstein – %billions to her husband’s company
2. Pelosi – $25 million
3. Senator Harry Reid – $1 million+
4. Hillary Clinton – $800,000
5. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani – $600,000+
6. Jefferson – $400,000+ (was seeking as much as $10 million)
7. I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby – $250,000 fine
8. Governor Mike Huckabee – $70,000
9. Senator Barack Obama – $60,000
10. Rep. John Conyers – misuse of government staff as personal servants
Report comment to moderator
NOTE: Theo here is the link:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-announces-list-washington-s-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2007
Report comment to moderator
Fyne, Jr.
Interesting how you use my description of bad debate /argumentation practise to commit bad practise #2 that is an ad hominium offered instead of answering questions or promoting one’s own ideas.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Worldmagblog wouldn’t accept my reference to the website. I referenced judicial watch in 151.
What did you want?
Report comment to moderator
Theo here is the link:
Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” for 2007
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, wrong story, here is the link Theo
Report comment to moderator
Theo you are right, it will not accept the link.
You could have told us where you received the material its right on the Title.
Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” for 2007
Report comment to moderator
Yes you did mention it earlier, but you left it out when you copy pasted the entire announcment.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry if you were confused. It wasn’t intentional. I thought I had made it clear earlier.
Report comment to moderator
THEO: Any other suggested entries?
George Bush: billions and billions
–He associated with Jack Abramoff in the White House (far more intimately than Hillary associated with Norman Hsu, whose crimes didn’t include illegal fundraising for Hillary). Abramoff’s crimes involved Bush officials and dozens of lawmakers and staffers.
–He commuted the prison sentence of #7 on the list to stop him from singing in jail.
–War profiteering and billions of lost and unaccounted money.
–Bush directed Alberto Gonzales to fire the US attorney who prosecuted Rep. Duke Cunningham for corruption.
Alberto Gonzales
–False prosecution of Gov. Seligman
Report comment to moderator
Theo –
Are you giving Hillary a pass on the murder of Vince Foster?
Report comment to moderator
181
Good point. Perhaps he and Cheney should be number 1 on the list. They probably beat Feinstein in corruption.
182
This list is for investigations that occurred in 2007. Vince Foster’s death was mysterious and certainly deserved further investigation but it was many years ago.
Revised list:
1. Bush and Cheney – $1 trillion Iraq War, $3 billion in oil profits, 4000 American lives
2. Feinstein – $billions to her husband’s company
3. Pelosi – $25 million
4. Senator Harry Reid – $1 million+
5. Hillary Clinton – $800,000
6. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani – $600,000+
7. Jefferson – $400,000+ (was seeking as much as $10 million)
8. I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby – $250,000 fine
9. Governor Mike Huckabee – $70,000
10. Senator Barack Obama – $60,000
11. Rep. John Conyers – misuse of government staff as personal servants
Report comment to moderator
Theo —
I don’t think there was any mystery about Vince Foster. As I recall, everyone said Hillary did it, and Ken Starr dropped the ball. Do you deny it? Rembember, there is no statute of limitations. She’s still a murderess. If it was outrageous then, it is outrageous now.
Report comment to moderator
Many people said Hillary did it but there were never any charges filed against her by the police or any other agency. All parties involved concluded that Vince Foster committed suicide.
Even if there is no statute of limitations, it would take dramatic evidence to reopen the investigation. While I would be hesitant to defend Hillary, I don’t think she can be convicted on the evidence presented by conspiracy theorists.
Report comment to moderator
Great conversation, Steve, Theo, HRW, and Scroop. It’s refreshing to see people use facts and remain courteous in their discourse, even when attacked and called names by lesser minds. Cheers!
Report comment to moderator
Fyne Jr. (157): Franky Phoenix. Nice to know you finally appreciate a simple answer to a question. Maybe next time you’ll hesitate to belch out crap like “I’ll get to it when I get to it.”
Victoria (160): Fyne Jr. Your last sentence is a WINNER!
Frank: VICTORIA: Hilarious, considering you haven’t a clue to what FJ is referring.
Fyne Jr.: So, just what was that Q you asked me … what, two years ago? … to which I replied “I’ll get to it when I get to it”?
Seriously. I’ll give it a shot answering it …
Report comment to moderator
Frank
Keep plugging along, ……. we love all the silly contributions, ETC.,
Did you read good ‘ole Ron Paul’ was pulled from the ‘debates’? He’s not even in the running – Who would have ever GUESSED?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria (197): Did you read good ‘ole Ron Paul’ was pulled from the ‘debates’?
Frank: Umm, that’s not exactly correct, Miss Vickie. Here’s the straight dope:
Oops … block quote formatting issue!
Umm, that’s not exactly correct, Miss Vickie. Here’s the straight dope:
This is being done by FOX, not by the GOP. Note well:
And lastly, do you really think that the MSM news networks will be able to bar Paul in future debates after he finishes a close 3rd in Iowa behind a tied/very close race between Huckabee and Romney?
If they try that, the people won’t allow it. And it’ll only make Paul stronger.
Keep whislting past the graveyard, Vickie …
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!