Happy Memorial Day

It looks to me like the kid, is hiding behind the one dude that might actually know what is going on…..

Well put Rich.

I’d rather have a man of ACTION in the White House that may make a few mistakes along the way than a thumb-sucking whiney liberal who’s INACTION in the face of an attack is a guarantee of even worse consequences.

– and props to the soldier there. Notice how he’s walking in the opposite direction of the fleeing crowd, heading towards the danger in order to confront it. Poignant.

“Rich, you’re changing the subject. We’re talking about a specific war, and poor rationale for armed conflict.”

Iraq, Iran, Al Quada … All these conflicts have common threads …

> An adversary who is so totalitarian in nature, they will specifically target noncombatants with terror tactics to foment political change.

> An adversary who believes they have the right/mandate to expand their totalitarian rule beyond their borders as far as possible … in some cases, worldwide.

> An adversary who is either fanatical or meglomanical (the latter usually exacerbated by their perception of our past INACTION) to the degree that Cold-War style deterrence will do little to stop them, once they gain deployable WMD or conventional force.

> An adversary that retains a capability — though it has been effectively checked by the vigilance of America and other free nations since 11 Sept 2001 — to attack our civilization at vulnerable points, knowing that the very freedom-of-movement and openness that allows all who participate in our global civilization to prosper creates inherent vulnerabilities that cannot always be defended against by a passive defense.

> An adversary who believes, based on the actions of America in the 32 years prior to 11 September 2001 — and the disunity among our political leadership today — that we are incapable of stopping them.

We are not talking about “freedom fighters” here … for true freedom fighters do not make a point of targeting the innocent around them.

We are talking about existential threats to our civilization, if any/all are allowed to grow any further, by taking over Iraq or other nations and exploiting their resources to grow further in a manner reminiscent of how a snowball, rolling down a mountain, turns into an avalanche.

The threat is simple to understand:

http://casebolt.blogspot.com/2006/11/in-simplest-of-terms.html

And we know how to stop them — all of them.

It is very simple.

You confront them — and continue to confront them, denying them the control of the MidEast they seek, bringing the VAST MAJORITY of people there, who want peace, on board — until the return on investment for terrorism is so low it is not worth their effort.

You don’t do their work for them … neither by paving the road Fast and Cheap for them with the undeserved deference of the hard Left, nor by scorching the earth Good and Fast and converting the MidEast to glass as some advocate … nor by turning our own civilization into an armed camp or engaging in WWII-style sacrifice that would be counterproductive in this asymetrical, technology-aided war.

You do it Good, and Cheap — cheap, in terms of lives lost and disrupted — by doing the work needed to root out the enemy among the innocent, and remove their ability to wage war — either by turning them to our side, capturing them, or killing them.

You. Don’t. Give. Ground.

President Reagan lent support to Saddam (a conversation-over-coffee, in comparison to the whores’ bed he shared with France/Germany/Russia), and the Latin American strongmen. (BTW, any aid bin Laden got from us was a by-product of supporting the Afghani resistance against the Soviets — and not specifically directed to him or his movement.)

I say again: do you know why we used proxies like Saddam over the years? Because people like you convinced our leaders that America should NEVER use its military power in a direct, timely, resolute, and decisive faction. So they made the best of a bad situation … and we are now paying for your success in promoting such folly.

OTOH, when Reagan didn’t listen to the calls of people like you for unilateral disarmament/nuclear freeze/removing missiles from Europe/junking SDI in the face of the Soviets, you decried him as a warmongering cowboy.

Look what we got, when he ignored you and confronted the Soviets — and Didn’t. Give. Ground …

>Eastern Europe — tens of millions of people — freed from totalitarian rule.
>The Soviet Union — dismantled and replaced with governance that, as imperfect as it is, is still a vast improvement in terms of rights-respecting governance over the totalitarian state it replaced.
>Nuclear arms stockpiles — reduced, IN REAL TERMS, for the first time in history (despite all the arms negotiations, detente’ and diplomatic accommodation advocated by the political Left). My great uncles no longer have Minuteman silos on 24-hour alert next door to them in western Missouri, thanks to Ronald Reagan.
>The threat of starting an all-out nuclear war — reduced to the need to remain vigilant, as opposed to 24/7 High Alert.

Yes, the Soviets were weakening by the time Reagan came into office … but they were showing no signs of collapsing anywhere near as fast as they did. Mr. Reagan’s actions brought them down in a controlled manner … instead of in a nuclear blaze-of-glory.

All thanks to one President’s willingness to confront our enemy.

Confrontation in a timely manner can prevent war … or minimize the butcher’s bill.

You critics have shown us repeatedly, by stridently discouraging the credible confrontation of those who would take life and liberty from innocent people — regardless of their ideology or location — that you haven’t learned that lesson.

(BTW, if FDR did what he did back then, today, you’d be screaming for his head, too!)

“Did you even look at the links?”

Why bother?

First, I just showed you that the basis for waging this war does not depend upon any formal links between Iran/Iraq/AQ — it depends upon the intent of our enemies, and their capability to implement that intent. Therefore, the NYT article is irrelevant.

As for Mother Jones, I have seen it all before … it is the same-ol’ same-ol’ spin that others have tied to push on me … and I have called them on it already.

http://casebolt.blogspot.com/2006/09/reposting-truth-about-iraq.html

“Or did you continue to back an ideology of might makes right regardless of circumstance?”

I think I have shown you where I am coming from … not might-makes-right, but right-using-might wisely to preserve the inalienable rights our founders properly perceived as belonging to ALL MEN.

“The majority of Americans oppose this war, and think the US is on the wrong track. Blind advocation of warfare must be backed up with rationale, not personal attacks.”

I just backed it up with rationale. Your problem is, my rationale doesn’t trash the man you loathe as “selected, not elected”, so you don’t like it. Therefore, you fling the rhetorical equivalent of monkey poo, and I call you on it.

Your main enemy is President Bush, who at worst might end up shredding some paper.

My main enemy is those who choose to shred people in the name of their perceived right-to-rule. It is they who have perpetrated the vast majority of deaths in Iraq … not this President.

And they won’t stop, if we do not confront them.

You tell me … who should we be shooting first?

“This cowboy attitude that you’re such a staunch supporter of is placing you into an increasing minority and you’re being pushed back to the fringes of rational debate where you belong.”

History speaks otherwise — for it is the cowboy (and his neighbor the sheepdog) that has HISTORICALLY preserved freedom and peace, as I have shown.

Popularity — or distorted viewpoints based upon the truly-faulty intelligence of the MSM — does not change that. Keep in mind that there was a time where a majority of the world thought slavery was moral.

The second-most important thing my father taught me, was to not blindly follow the crowd.

“You lost.”

No I have not … from what I have seen in history.

You had better hope I have not “lost”, Alvin … for if I have lost, we all have — because we will not be ready for the next 911, much less a full-scale assault on America by an enemy left to grow stronger by our INACTION.

My unit did a year in Iraq in ’04, and that heads-up soldier is doing his job: looking for the threat, turning TOWARD the action (track his legs in the sequence), and allowing the kid to use him as a shield – all at once.

The true irony of all this is that infantry grunts like me and that airborne trooper are the ones keepin’ all you liberalite jackasses safe enough to spew your shit.

Keep it up, fools – your own words serve better to destroy any shred of credibility you might have ever had than any rebuttal from those who have been there. Keep trottin’ out your delusions – unimpeded by fact – and you’ll just keep fading into Neville Chamberlain obscurity.

You are pathetic excuses for human beings.
Killing is NEVER fun.
But there are times when it’s necessary, and you ungrateful punks should have at least enough good sense to recognize that the very freedoms you’re exercising now are due to people like us who do what needs to be done – while you sit on your asses, fat, dumb, happy……….and ignorant.

Which is a good thing.
You wouldn’t be worth shit on the pointy end anyway, so just stay the hell outta the way.

“I think it’s pretty easy to be pro-troops and anti-Iraq-war”

Thats the difference between us. Soldiers don’t see it that way…we actually know the loss that you only imagine. We’ve lived times others would say are best forgotten. You might say, “hey, you don’t know me”. I know you’re not a soldier.

If we leave without helping the Iraqis form some type of solid government, we will have lost our soldiers for nothing. And let me remind you that every time you hear the press report we lost six soldiers today and eight soldiers yesterday, you should know that hundreds of people each day die in traffic accidents in the U.S.. The price of freedom is not cheap, but don’t let the press confuse you for the purposes of selling advertising…

9/11 didn’t have much to do with Iraq.

We went to Iraq, not because they were necessarily involved in 911 … but because, if a few dozen guys and $1M could perpetrate 911, what do you think that someone — someone who has PROVEN they share the same view of life and liberty as bin Laden — would do if they are left alone with the resources of a nation … and no effective checks-and-balances?

The failure, my friends, is in that unique mix of idealism and pessimism that leads some to believe that (1) we are incapable of passing accurate judgment on the suitability of a particular government to act responsibly on the world stage, and (2) thereore we must treat despot and democrat with the same deference … and respect their soverignty in exactly the same way.

History’s verdict is in … and systems of governance that do not adequately protect the inalienable rights of the individual within their borders, are highly vulnerable to being hijacked by thugs and fanatics, to be leveraged to expand totalitarian rule beyond their borders.

The success, in terms of both peace and prosperity (read: not starving, but instead having the luxury of, say, being concerned about our environment while listening to our iPods) of our civilization depends upon interconnections that — due to the need for freedom of movement and open communication to facilitate efficient commercial and social interaction — are highly vulnerable to disruption by violent attack.

This “Web of Trust”, as described by blogger Bill Whittle here …

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000135.html

… our indivdiual lives and liberty, and our entire civilization … depends upon both keeping men free to spin sections of that Web for the benefit of all, while making sure no one with the determination to tear holes in that Web is left alone long enough to do so.

Blind respect for the soverignty of totalitarian despots … or reliance upon diplomacy or anything else to keep the peace, in the absence of a CREDIBLE (read: ready-and-willing-to-use) threat of DECISIVE force for use against said despots … leaves them alone to tear those holes.

That is the results of the INACTION I refer to … INACTION in the face of known enemies, by those who, in their intellectual and moral myopia, see America as the greater threat.

Oh, you guys are so proud and so brave, killing all those unarmed brown people in the Middle East! You’re really preserving our freedoms!

Fuck you. The military is comprised of nothing but uneducated bumpkins with guns. You aren’t fighting World War 2 or the Revolutionary War or the Communists. You’re fighting a rich bastards quest for oil, all in the name of sacred freedoms that you were dumb enough to be misled by. But guess what? My freedom to tell you to fuck off doesn’t rest on your ability to occupy someone else’s country. So, in the name of all things holy and worthwhile, go fuck yourself, you wanna be GI Joe’s.

I have to agree with the soldiers, you cannot oppose the war and support the troops, the two, by the very nature of the job, are indistinguishable.

That’s why I say FUCK THE TROOPS. It’s a volunteer army, and there is no excuse for the perpetuation of a bullshit war for some baby boy president’s ego.

IF you’re fighting this war, you’re guilty of the this war’s crimes. Not only are you guilty of those crimes, you’re guilty of being a pussy ass failure of an armed force! How did a bunch of poor Muslims in the sand kick your ass?!?!

This alone proves that the American fighting Man is nothing more than a weak little worn out Jock that got his ass passed through classes he never deserved.

Don’t be defensive of a fucked up war where you kill babies just because your high school sucked and your step-dad beat you.

Get over your issues of being a little queer ass. When you want to get into Mommy’s arena of hardcore politics, she’ll fuck you like the little cunt you are.

Go blow Rush Limbaugh and your fake president you little homophobic atheist! President Bush is more proof of the incestuous conservative right, and their need to undermine the true authority of christ. There hasn’t been a great presidsent since Truman.

BRING BACK HARRY S.!

>and that’s not hard to do if there weren’t so many gun sucking cock-fags in the GOP right now, we could show the balls needed to clone our own best president, and end this vile war of the devil.

You stupid queer vegan blo-job soldiers, stop raping the children of the world and start undressing the crimes of your body.

Untill the Joint Chiefs of staff and the Pentagon repent for their sins, men like Bush and Mitt Romney will continue to gain power.

Stop the war!
Support Saddam!
Al Qaeda in Allah!
Jihad on the troops!

This is the problem, Al Qaeda attacked the U.S. directly. Not Saddam, not Iraq. IF Iraq had attacked the U.S. we’d be having a different debate, but the war in Iraq is a war of retaliation against the wrong country … by shrugging it off in saying that “it all has common threads” belies the impact. No nation has the authority to wield unchecked military power across the world.

Here we have the most fundamental misperceptions of the anti-war Left, for all to see.

Your thinking is so 20th Century, Alvin …

… for back then, we believed that if we refused to fight, we would have peace.

We could believe that because, for an adversary to be able to project force to the degree needed to get us to question that premise, it took a level of national might that few nations had then. Therefore, we believed that if we held the mighty to the highest standards of conduct, and provided rational alternatives for conflict resolution, we could set the triggering conditions for armed actions on our part to extremely high levels — i.e. attacks on our own soil.

Even a practical effort to attain that might required enough discipline on the part of an adversary to compel them to think rationally, which is another significant check-and-balance against warmongering and fomenting terror.

Things have changed.

Now even the smallest of nations, and even non-national groups who seek to force or leverage political change, have access to technologies that multiply the force of a few men several thousand-fold. Everything from radiological material, to chemicals that can be weaponized …, to “borrowing” a few, fully-fueled 767’s, as we saw a few years ago.

Such as these do not have to go through the disciplined process of the past — a process that produces rationality in an adversary, along with warning signs of intent that are relatively easy to see — to acquire/develop this ability to project power. Today, even barbaric regimes, whose lack of rationality would in earlier times preclude them from gaining the power to threaten us, can do so — especially in the case of nations who, by cooperating with non-national totalitarian groups, can gain a measure of plausible deniability in the eyes of 20th-Century thinkers.

(Part of that discipline, BTW, is learning the value of good-faith negotiation, as opposed to exploiting the tolerance of the international community to buy time and/or space to continue to work against the peace.)

They now can piggy-back on the freedom of movement that makes our civilization work, to apply that force at its most vulnerable spots, and kill tens of thousands by surprise.

And, they don’t have to take and hold a whole lot of ground to either impose their will upon the world, by leveraging terror and/or strangulating access to resources (and not just oil) … or force us into the dilemma of either letting them slowly strangle our civilization, or enter a knock-down, drag-out, nation-on-nation World War to stop them, that will scar our own civilization and kill MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS!

In this light, this is not a war of retaliation … this is an effort of just governments — American, Iraqi, and many others … performing their primary mission; protecting the inalienable rights of their people.

Al Quada attacked our soil … but they, along with Saddam & Sons and Iran, had been attacking our CIVILIZATION for years, especially via terrorist proxies. In today’s world, attacking that civilization leads to the denial of life and liberty for many I depend upon in my pursuit of happiness — and eventually, allows the barbarians to approach my gate by hijacking the “many” and their nations, and threaten my own life and liberty.

The world has changed, Alvin — and it changed well before 11 September 2001.

Since it is evident that the triggering standards of the past are no longer sufficient to prevent the barbaric from executing actions of mass lethality that damage our civilization, they had to change as well.

Fortunately for us, there are still characteristics that can identify fanatics and thugs as a threat:

>Regimes that impose totalitarian rule (and its asssociated brutality) upon their own people … and with enough wealth (it doesn’t take much — the Taliban proved that) to expand their brutal “vision” beyond their borders, either directly or via terrorist surrogates.

>Regimes that support trans-national terrorist groups who share their totalitarian worldview (but not necessarily agree upon the details of how to implement that … Baathist Syria, Shiite Iran, and their terrorist sycophants are a good example of this)

>Regimes whose governmental structure provides NO effective checks-and-balances against capricious action by their leaders — as opposed to the totalitarian, but disciplined adversaries of our past such as the USSR and China.

Nations who exhibit any of these characteristics certainly deserve to be confronted by free people … and if not us, then who? … for they are a threat to our civilzation that can erupt at almost a moment’s notice, even if they have not tripped the wire on our own soil.

Keep this in mind … it took only seven years for Germany to go from broken-down to blitzkreig, in an earlier time where technology and freedom of movement was at a level far slower than today.

Nor are such confrontations unchecked projections of force …

… for if we were unchecked, our ICBMs would have flown way before now, and we would not be having this discussion, instead of debating things like the World’s Longest Rush To War.

What you want, is external checks upon America … without regard to the wisdom, morality or humanity of the international bodies doing the checking. That way, you can be confident in your choice to stick your head in the sand.

I’ll take the internal checks-and-balances that have restrained our hand — even to the point of placing our own forces at greater risk to preserve the lives of the innocent — but still allow us to act decisively against those who are the true threats to peace.

They weren’t weakened. They were dead, but hiding it. in 1986 the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant suffered from a partial core meltdown resulting in the worst Nuclear accident in history. Sweden and Norway were aware of the massive radiological outputs before Moscow was. It’s an anecdote, but this also underscores how poor Moscow was in immediate response.

They still held the power to glass over the world … and in fact, their weakness intensified the short-term risk. Falling regimes often go out in an uncontrolled blaze-of-glory … or start wars to deflect internal dissent.

Regan was just in office at the time. Saying he caused the downfall of the Soviet Union is like saying the King in England caused the Civil War because he was opposed to slavery. It just doesn’t add up. You invoke history a lot, I wish you knew more about it.

I wish you would quit trying to gloss over history you don’t like.

Reagan’s confrontations of the Soviet Union showed them that they COULD NOT WIN, as long as someone like him was in charge … and after they saw how we turned out Carter and respected Reagan, they had reason to believe that this would not change.

Had he not confronted them, the Soviets would have had no incentive for engaging in REAL nuclear-arms reductions — not just the shell-games and reductions in the growth rate derived from pre-Reagan negotiations, but REAL reductions that removed the silos from around my uncles’ farms in Missouri, among others.

SDI also scared them … for they remembered the Apollo program, and how quickly we could develop and leverage technology for practical purposes.

In MANY areas, he changed their thinking … unlike previous leaders … through his confrontation … and that led to the changes in action that have made this world safer in my lifetime.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-06-09-aron_x.htm

MY STATEMENT: The success, in terms of both peace and prosperity (read: not starving, but instead having the luxury of, say, being concerned about our environment while listening to our iPods) of our civilization depends upon interconnections that — due to the need for freedom of movement and open communication to facilitate efficient commercial and social interaction — are highly vulnerable to disruption by violent attack.

ALVIN’S RESPONSE: But this has nothing to do with an irresponsible war based on minimal evidence, and a conflict that the UN rejected. If you want to argue about international responsibility, one must question the responsibility of acting in disregard of that community.

Given their performance, when it comes to liberating people and fostering peace — as opposed to treating despot and democrat with the same deference while being bribed — one must question the responsibility of actually subordinating one’s common sense to the viewpoint of the UN.

The current state of the UN is what you get when democracy is applied in an environment devoid of basic morality and respect (beyond platitudes) for the inalienable rights of the human individual.

The events of the last seven years have weighed them and found them wanting.

You can talk all your high and mighty bullshit about how liberals are infesting and undermining the abilities of “real” americans to live free and thankful, but if you’ve degenerated this far in a childish cry to keep your way of life the same, then you are already on the outside.

It is not about thanks … it is about choosing to either spend our time advancing our lot in life by dealing with those who threaten it, for now, and for good …

… or spend our time watching our backs, in perpetuity.

If you cannot see the threat totalitarian-driven terror OF ANY KIND poses to global civilization (and therefore, America), but are instead stuck in the misplaced idealism of the 20th century that you can only defend by espousing the conventional wisdom of that century … conventional wisdom that I have shown fails us when dealing with irrational despots that now have the ability to leverage technology and diplomacy to expand totalitarian rule … I wouldn’t want to be inside whatever you are “inside”.

That is because, I think what you are “inside” is a bullseye … or, sooner or later, a slaugherhouse.

If all it took to make the army turn pussy vietnam was a bunch of whiny kids pushing around Nixon, what makes you think lightning doesn’t strike twice?

It wasn’t just a bunch of whiny kids … it was some of their older brothers and other elders, confusing education and eurdition with wisdom and prudence, buying into your conventional wisdom, eventually convincing Nixon to do what he did.

And the lightning we got struck with then … was nothing compared to what the South Vietnamese got struck with. And your kind of thinking was the lightning rod.

Keep crying about how everything you love needs to be protected, keep crying till your little world falls apart around you because the great Republican Revolution is over,

I’m an independent … I left the GOP in 1998, and started supporting men, not parties.

Excuse me, your bias is showing.

and the neo-con experiment is a failure.

It was already validated by experimental evidence — in Japan, in Germany, in the Pacific Rim, in Eastern Europe … and even in China, where they are finding that their future lies upon our path of economic freedom, and will soon realize that political freedom is required to maintain that path.

Even in Iraq … given the progress in Anbar and elsewhere, I’d not be so self-assured about that, if I were you. As long as we persevere, it will work — as the nations above have shown.

As I told Kit, call me in about five years.

Enjoy your final few plea’s for a brighter whiter america,

Excuse me, the brightness I advocate is the light of wisdom … and that does not discriminate on the basis of race.

That brightness makes the thoughts of the Best and Brightest you parrot look like dim bulbs in comparison.

the rest of us are going to march into enlightened liberalism.

Like France just did in their last elections?

Like the ten thousand or so Leftist/anarchists in DC last March 17 — faced down by THIRTY THOUSAND who are tired of their garbage? And before them, confronted by those who counter-protest them now, even in their midst?

Like the growth of conservative activism on our college campuses … the new rebels?

Like the Democratic Congressional Leadership …
… who owe their present power to the election of afew Blue Dog Democrats who do not totally share their “enlightened liberalism”
… who couldn’t impose the timelines (let alone defunding) upon the President regarding the war that were DEMANDED by the MoveOn/Soros mobs.
… who couldn’t even get Joe Liebermann defeated.

You might be basing your view of “majority” status upon presidental-approval polls and the like … if you are doing that, I have a recommendation.

Get a G-suit, in good working order, for you will need it to ride those polls once people who think like I do start asking poll questions that go beyond the superficiality of the MSM.

No, what we may be seeing here is a last gasp of the myopic, misplaced idealism of the 20th Century in America, as the leaders of the political Left struggle to Save the Legacy of the Woodstock Nation … that “enlightened liberalism” you talk about.

It lived for far too long, because those who confused it with wisdom were very succesful in placing themselves in positions of power and influence … and it sounded good to everyone else.

Now, it has left — and is still leaving, from Iraq to the Mexican border — a paper trail that reveals its true characteristics … a soft-and-cuddly fascism that, unless confronted, overrides common sense in many — in a parasitic manner.

This is a paper trail its advocates cannot paper over with newsprint, as they did in past years … because they no longer have a monopoly on the transfer of information to/from the people.

It may take the demise of my generation to completely kill it off … but it will die.

For we won’t be fooled again …

Rich: would you mind elaborating about this totalitarian-driven terror, or at least pointing to where you explain that terminology further. I’m not sure I understand the connection you have constructed between these two things

The pictures say everything.

The rest of us are just talking.

Thanks Alec.

Alvin … you can look at my response to porn0 death Ray above, for a list of those I consider today’s primary threat to peace — specific, totalitarian-driven terrorist entities — and what their basic objective is in all cases … domination of as much of the world as they can get a hold of, leveraging what they take as they go to take more.

It is not an exclusive list — the bottom line is:

1>Any nation with a regime that maintains totalitarian (as opposed to authoritarian) rule within its borders, has attempted to project their rule outside their borders directly or via surrogates, and has the ability to do that again, is an enemy of civilization in my view … for history shows that totalitarians do not stop until free people force them to.

2>Any nation that does not have a sustainable form of rights-respecting governance that is strong enough to thwart attempts by totalitarian elements to hijack it, has the potential for becoming an enemy. This includes authoritarian nations … for a heavy hand breeds resentment in the people, that terrorists can leverage — and too often authoritarian governments lack the checks-and-balances needed to prevent a totalitarian in their midst from taking over.

3>Nations that have sustainable, strong, rights-respecting governance are not our enemies today, nor will they become our enemies as long as that governance is in place.

Sneer at that as the “neo-con” position … but it still represents the TRUTH of the 21st Century.

Not the 20th-Century conventional wisdom you espouse.

1. I have NEVER brought up the 2000 election, you’ve made assumptions.

Well excuse me … if I could take away all those who take your position on this war, who do so, not from careful, principled dissent — but because the “Selected-in-Chief” is leading it — you could probably fit yourselves in Madison Square Garden.

2. You state that you don’t back a party, but you assume that I have…DON’T

You regurgitate the basic positions and analysis of the hard-left base of the Democratic Party … and have defended them with evidence and thinking that echoes theirs, as I have seen and debated enough of it over the last few years to know.

3. You claim I’m a backer of Move On. I find the website as extremist on the left as Fox news is for the right, again stop with the stereotypes.

Yet you regurgitate their basic position — the war is wrong, Bush is to blame.

Where’s your original thinking, from a basis of principle — not conventional wisdom — to justify your positions?

Keep in mind, EVERY leader in wartime has made serious errors … the question is do they learn from them?

I think this President does, though he still makes errors … his opponents, however, still espouse the same conventional wisdom that got us here, and stridently encourage and push him to act from the basis of that conventional wisdom.

4. Every time a leader you respect has failed you state that it is because of “weak liberals that have forced these leaders into failure” where in the world is one supposed to go? you’ve creates an escapest clause for everything you disagree with…

No — I do fault our leaders for adopting these policies.

However, those who advocate them — and still do even now, after we see the messes left in the MidEast by our overreliance on diplomacy there, side-by-side with the RESULTS we got in Eastern Europe and elsewhere when we ignored the 20th-Century conventional wisdom that the political Left sold us — never seem to be held to account for their folly.

My opponents keep clamoring about root causes … well, here it is: the pursuit of peace through the simplistic idea that you can get it if you just refuse to fight.

Look what you get when you believe that War is Never the Answer … perpetual strife interposed with periods of tense peace.

Look what you get when you stop singing Kumbiyah, and start singing Yippie-Ky-Ay-A: liberation, arms reduction, sustainable peace.

5. Again you claim you’re an independent thinker that doesn’t tow a party line. From my perspective you’ve back very classic neo-con right wing rhetoric, you do not sound like an independent thinker, and from your view, I sound like a leftist counterpart. If these assumptions continue to hold, how do you expect real conversation to develop.

Alvin … my views are my own. If yours are your own, OK.

But where our views come from is of secondary importance.

The primary importance is how those views square with the objective standards of fact, history, and reason … not conventional wisdom, but true wisdom.

I’m honestly tired of trying to argue with such entrenched ideas. I have done the best that I can to really work with you and argue on your terms about these points, but I’m done. My grandpa taught me never to argue with a drunk or a fool, I obviously started fighting with one of those two….

How do you think a conversation is going to start, if that is your attitude?

The problem is, you don’t want to think past the conventional wisdom.

I challenge you … challenge the simplistic, conventional wisdom you seem to have bought into.

You can start by answering this question … honestly, without resorting to that conventional wisdom. Everything I have posted here has dealt with the details surrounding that question.

If a few dozen guys and $1M dollars produced the national trauma of 11 September 2001, why does it make sense to trust someone of like mind with control of a soverign, wealthy, technically-advanced nation … and if it doesn’t make sense, what do you propose to DO about it, since leaving things alone worked so well with those few dozen guys?

Peace is our common goal.

Where you and I differ, is on what it is going to take to reach it.

who cares what this inconsequential little nitwit (david) has to say? let him (and his equally half-witted defenders) continue to dwell in their dimlighted ignorance. the undeserved self-importance which they deem to be reality, affects nothing and no one.

Alivinblah said

“there is no excuse for armed conflict.”

This is uniformed and naive. You really should ask for your money back on that public education. If you’ve been to a university, you really need to ask for your money back.

This country was born in armned conflict that eneded colonialism on our shores.

Other good reasons for armed conflict:

Ending Nazism
ending slavery
halting the spread of the Soviet Union
sparing half of Korea from Kim Jong Il
stopping Japan from assuming ownership of all of the South Pacific
bringing down the Taliban

You’re a brave little child on the internet (Alvinblah: “If you want to make a fight about it, let’s dance..”) But one lacking in understanding of how the world works. If good people don’t defend themselves, evil ones are always more than happy to impose their will.

Do you really think the world would be better off if we withdrew our armed forces into our own borders? Sorry, someone has to stand up to the real dirtbags of the world. The Iraquis have repeatly asked us to stay.

Internet tough guys love to talk about the evils of the US because they know we’re a tolerant lot. They are too gutless to talk about the crimes of Islam because they tend to fight back with more than words.

You can go yell at a soldier or an American who supports the war and they might tell you off. Try going after a hard-core mulim on his beliefs you gutless wonder.

AlvinBlah said:

“Once you’re done dicksucking the dead president, lets talk about the Iraq War, that is what we’re debating.”

That’s NOT how debate (or any kind of civilized discourse) is done, clownboy. If you want to pretend that’s what you’re engaging in, you’re all alone.

Can’t imagine why you’re not getting a warmer reception in this forum.

That is the picture of a sheepdog protecting the sheep from the wolves. Most posting on here are sheep. They should thank the sheepdog and then shut the baaaabaaaa up.

“The activities of the US military in Afghanistan is one major reason that Osama bin Laden’s capability of attacking your butt on American soil has been reduced to the delivery of a few, grainy video tapes as he scurries about in the mountains, unable to even use a cell phone less the Big Ears of the NSA pick it up and send a return message via PredX (Predator Express) or, for the personal touch, with some Green Berets …”

Appreciated, but whether or not I am safer from Osama bin Laden’s evil is different. Protecting my person and protecting my freedoms are not the same thing. If they wanted to, the government could protect my person very well by locking me in a steel bunker underground with no contact to the outside world, but that would have quite the opposite effect on my freedom.

“Appreciated, but whether or not I am safer from Osama bin Laden’s evil is different. Protecting my person and protecting my freedoms are not the same thing. If they wanted to, the government could protect my person very well by locking me in a steel bunker underground with no contact to the outside world, but that would have quite the opposite effect on my freedom.”

And, as I should have said, because liberty and safety are different, the military is not the protector of my freedom as is so often claimed.

Honestly I am sick of hearing the words freedom and terrorism, which have become buzzwords for good and evil, with no real meaning attached to them anymore. No matter the ends, it is transparent propaganda, and a people who let it slide for some greater good are on their way to the totalitarianism they fear so much.

Might I point out that even if it wasn’t an American Soldier, and instead an American working for private security companies, (Halliburton or whatever) it in no way lowers the courage and heroic nature of the actions depicted. I am particularly disturbed at the use of “washed up police man” being used as a term of derision. I know a few washed up police officers, and I would rather have them watching my back than most of the commentators here.

Frankly I’m amazed that the soldier allowed the kid to hide behind him. My first thought would have been that the insurgents were using him as a suicide bomber.

Finally, for all the anti-war idiots here. I am very disturbed at the inability to discern the difference between whether something is evil and whether something is stupid.

Toppling Saddam was good. Period. Whether it was a smart thing to do is still undetermined.

All of these other ideas about the cause of the war are ridiculous. It was simply that Saddam had shown repeated hostility towards us, and 911 made us aware of our vulnerability. Thus the decision to take out one of the possible threats and surround Iran in the process.

WMD was just a means of gaining UN support as was clear to anyone living through the run-up to the war. (Blair was the one who really believed the whole WMD thing, not Bush).

Oil is the stupidest reason suggested as why we went to war, as it would have been far cheaper to let Saddam buy us off with oil, the way he was paying off the French and Russians. That way we would have got our oil and not had to fight.

Cynicism is only a sign of intelligence when it is supported by logic. Simply arguing that nefarious motives are to blame on the grounds that nefarious motives are the only motivating force in American (or Republican) politics is silly.

Just because you think an action is stupid, doesn’t mean that the people supporting it are evil.

Absolute dictatorships, from what I have seen, act with the same lack of respect for life and liberty as trans-national terrorist groups. Rape rooms and mass graves in a totalitarian regime have the same effect on the innocent (physically and psychologically) as suicide bombings and videotaped beheadings do.

History also shows me that absolute dictatorships, once they gain the desire and means to expand, do not stop trying to expand that brutal totalitarian rule until they are forced back by others.

Since there are no checks-and-balances on their actions, morality becomes irrelevant … they will ally with anyone who they see will provide assistance in reaching their objectives; in particular, terrorist surrogates who can help further that expansion while providing plausible deniability to the despot.

Therefore, there is no practical difference between them and the terrorists, except that the dictator has the ability to exploit the resources, infrastructure, and people of a whole nation.

Both are a threat to civilization.

And yes, the Cold War was a major driver for so much proxy warfare … but not the only one, by any means. There were places … from Vietnam, to Iran, to Iraq … where we engaged in proxy warfare, when it was not justified by the need to carefully and subtly deal with the Soviet Bear.

However, our mistake was trying to control these nations, while leaving their governments in place to avoid accusations of imperialism … instead of working to institute rights-respecting governance within them, which would have immunized them from communist takeover while showing the people within that we actually were looking out for them, as well.

For instance, had we directly and decisively stomped on Iran in 1979 in response to the hostage-taking … or before that, stepped in and worked with — or around — the Shah to end his abuses and institute rights-respecting governance there … there would be a whole lot more people in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and Israel alive today.

But the peaceniks and the “realists” told us we couldn’t do that … so, now, I see dead people.

A lot of dead people, who didn’t need to die.

Looks like the little boy has no trouble figuring out who the good guys are.

@ Soldier –

Good luck and god bless! It must be hard to keep the faith while reading and listening to all of the spineless immoral blather coming from your countrymen.

Keep up the good work and stay strong and safe. Whatever people are whining about now – you will be thanked for generations to come.

Alvinsuckadick,”what liberal has been inactive in the face of an attack. Back this up. Who?”

How about your dick wad buddy William J.Clits-r-us? How many terrorist strikes happened under his watch?Selective memory huh?While he was getting his cock sucked in the oval office and selling nuclear secrets to China(for personal profit),we had war declared on us and he didn’t even have a clue.You fuckin bleeding hearts are all the same.You fuck heads ignore history or better yet try to rewrite it.Your leaders are cowards just like their constituents.

Kit … it took longer, from the start of hostilities, to capture Milosovec for trial than it did Saddam … and the Serbians themselves, not American forces, made the capture.

Oh yeah… Casebolt… your whole “domino theory” of dictatorships is totally bogus. The majority of dictatorships DON’T attempt to spread beyond their own ability to rule. Only the crazies do that, and that’s because they don’t just want to rule, they want to be legendary…. So those are the handful that you hear about. That’s why they’re famous. Most dictatorships are Banana Republics — which is basically what Saddam was.

If it is totally bogus, name me one in history that, once they had the will and capability to expand, stopped on their own, without facing CREDIBLE confrontation.

I did acknowledge above that not every dictatorship needs our immediate military attention to thwart their expansion. As you might say, only the “crazies” do that … but today, as we saw on 11 Sept 2001, the “crazies” can leverage technology and the freedom-of-movement (that can’t be shut off without choking off the global economy) and kill as never before.

You willing to take that kind of hit … again?

I ask again: If a few dozen guys and $1M dollars produced the national trauma of 11 September 2001, why does it make sense to trust someone of like mind with control of a soverign, wealthy, technically-advanced nation … and if it doesn’t make sense, what do you propose to DO about it, since leaving things alone worked so well with those few dozen guys?

Your suggestion to let ’em fight it out, is conferring that trust upon the victor … whether or not they are of like mind with the thugs and fanatics, when it comes to life and liberty. Is that the stew you really want to see made in the pressure cooker?

Even if your analysis is correct… and I don’t believe that it is, then Sadaam had already hit the limit of his expanse. 41 kicked his ass in Kuwait (in case you had forgotten) and we have been setting up rules for his movement ever since (not to mention bombing him constantly). So if there ever was a dictator who was penned in…

Ah, containment … that depended upon a perpetual, dangerous, and costly American presence in the region, of a size and nature that was not sustainable forever … and was being eroded by political pressure and UN corruption via Oil-For-Food. And even then, Saddam could still support terrorists with impunity.

Once the erosion was complete, and we left the region, the WMD programs would have restarted.

The difference with today’s presence is, we are moving not to contain the threat … but end it. That will, in the end, reduce the downsides — and eventually, the level — of our presence.

As for Mossagedeh and Iran —

(1) he was getting too close to the Soviets, who would have just loved to get close to him and Iran’s warm-water ports (as well as oil) — then turn Iran’s democracy into “one-man, one-vote, one time” and add them to their collection of de facto colonies … and be in the catbird seat to do the same to Iraq, then Saudi Arabia.

(2) the problem is, we didn’t directly intervene … ever.

While direct intervention in 1953 might have stirred things up with the Soviets, had we directly intervened in the following years to work with — or around — the Shah to install a robust, truly rights-respecting govenrment (which is more than mere democracy, as I have described earler), not only could the Islamic Revolution have been thwarted, but the growth of Hamas, Hezbollah and other disturbers-of-MidEast peace could have been stunted severely.

This isn’t 1917-1932, Crunchy — we aren’t in the business of empire. What we are in the business of, is the establishment of UNIVERSAL, PROVEN principles of quality governance within a dysfunctional nation, in order to establish conditions for a sustainable peace.

These principles transcend culture … and work wherever they are implemented, as long as they are given the breathing space from thuggery and fanaticism long enough to take root and gain the capability of defending themselves. These principles DO have a place in the MidEast — for they apply to ALL MEN, as our own founders noted.

You sell the people of the MidEast short, Crunchy, when you say they are not ready for democracy. They are ready for rights-respecting governance — of which democracy is an important element — once those relative few who held the rest hostage (physically, and psychologically) to their greed and fanaticism are turned or eliminated.

Ask the Kurds
Ask the guys at Iraq the Model
Ask the Anbar Salvation Council

if they are ready for this.

We’ve certainly never helped things out before.

Actually, we did … in Japan, Germany, the Pacific Rim, and Eastern Europe … because we stayed involved in the confrontation of our enemies, long enough to see rights-respecting governance replace the “alternatives” there.

Where we have failed, is where we have not stayed involved … either “contracting” the work out to proxies, or ignoring the dysfunctional outright.

We sought stability … instead of sustainable peace … because we thought that way we could avoid the direct and decisive military conflict that is seen by our Best and Brightest as “below” them, and/or a sign of “failure” on our part.

We got neither stability, nor peace, as a result.

The paragidm had to change.

I think that history consistantly shows that non-intervention is the best policy in civil wars, the only exception is cases of genocide, because that is a moral qualm that is, historically, unassailable.

Does hundreds of thousands in mass graves in Iraq qualify as genocide?

And, this is not a civil war … despite the media spin; here are the top ten reasons why this is not a civil war:

http://casebolt.blogspot.com/2007/04/mining-model.html

I find your case persuasive, Casebolt, but I also think that your reasoning for refuting the Civil War in Iraq might be based on an overly narrow definition of a Civil War as well as some assumptions about the body politic in Iraq that I don’t find very convincing.

Lets go point by point.

1. The two main factions alleged (by those who wish it to be true) to be fighting a “civil war,” the Sunnis and Shias, are still serving in Iraqi government positions, working together in the halls of government.

Yes, there are Sunnis and Shia serving in Iraqi Government positions. In the American Civil War there were both Northerners and Southerners still serving in government positions…. but there were Unionists and Secessionists fighting it out on the ground. I think that simply equating Sunnis and Shias with one side or the other is a problem… that may largely be true, just as the Northerners were generally Unionists and Southerners generally Secessionists, but the fact remains that there are many bodies of Iraqi civillians fighting one another in a very real way on the ground. This isn’t just about religion… though that plays a large role. It’s also about sovereignty. These people feel that their autonomy is threatened by their neighbors as well as the 300-pound gorrilla that has camped out with them (no matter how good his intentions).
Furthermore, even if this is entirely about religion… I’ve heard some great speeches from moderates and seen the crazies knock some buildings down. I mean… I’d like to think the moderates are the majority… but if the crazies keep on killing your neighbors and knocking your house down.. well… I bet that makes you crazy real fast, too.

2. Neither party has withdrawn from the government to form a rump, competing, or rebel government. The Sunnis would be the logical party to withdraw, since they are in the minority.

I would argue that this is not true. It seems to me that there are multiple different governmental powers on the ground in Iraq with competing ideologies and troops. Certainly, the US doesn’t recognize them all as legitimate governmental agencies (we only recognize the one that we forced into power), but that doesn’t stop them from behaving that way. They have troops and resources. They seem to have international support. They have garnered the support of many Iraqi civilians. AND they seem to feel that they are fighting for the sovereignty of their country. In fact, if you read the NIE from January (here’s the link: http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/iraq_dni_20070202_release.pdf) you will see that they say (and I’m paraphrasing) that calling this conflict a Civil War is not entirely accurate because the situation is entirely too FUBAR to be so simply labeled (in other words: it’s much worse than that). However, they go on to say that the term certainly is appropriate when applied to most of the action in Iraq. So, optomist that I am, I prefer to use the tamer label: Civil War, rather than volcanic hell hole.

3. Sunnis and Shias recently attended a mass funeral procession together for victims of AQ violence.

Again, seeing Sunnis and Shias together as a sign that Iraq is a unified country oversimplifies the splintering of the populace. Millions got together to protest this war before we went in… was that a sign that we were unified? Also, Al Qaeda only represents 17-20% of the terrorist cells present in Iraq today. Maybe they can get together over Al Qaeda killings because they never liked AQ, doesn’t mean they see the Mahdi army in the same light.

4. Millions of Sunnis and Shias are happily intermarried in Iraq, especially in Baghdad.

Ditto. Blacks and whites, Yanks and Rebs… individuals can push for change, doesn’t mean that society at large agrees.

5. Suicide bombings of innocent Iraqis by AQ is not a civil war. It is a failed attmept to start a civil war which so far has failed.

I agree with you here. Suicide bombings by AQ =/ a Civil War. That’s true. Sadly, most of the insurgent attacks these days… ain’t AQ.

6. So called sectarian violence, which in some cases is actually the killing of AQ members and/or supporters, is not a civil war. Such killings have decreased. This will not end yet, some Shias have 30 years of oppression to avenge. This is not civil war, this is vigilantism.

If Shias dressed up as cops kidnapping and killing hundreds of Sunni gov’t workers, is Shia on AQ violence… then we must be supporting the wrong damned gov’t. Most of the bodies that are turning up are not “AQ.” That’s simply not true. AQ HAS been pouring into the country. Yes. But they only make up a small percentage of the body count, so either we’re not very efficient at killing them, and they are really efficient at killing everyone else… or those bodies are Iraqi civvies killing one another.

http://icasualties.org/oif/
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

8. There has not been a single instance of a pitched battle at even the platoon level between Sunnis and Shias with both sides organized and fighting under commanders, etc. There is no area under control of “rebels” who have announced a rump government.

I believe Sadr City would be the counter to this point. The US assisted, but we had trained Iraqi soldiers vs. Iraqi Militias… and I hope the militia was trained ’cause they held that place for some time as I recall… As for rebels controlling an area.. well technically they don’t have to. This is asymetrical warfare. All they have to do is play the Shining Path. You don’t have to be a control territory to be a rebel, you just have to exercise bloody power.

9. The Sunnis greatest fear is that the USA will withdraw from Iraq before a political reconciliation is accomplished. Why? See below.

answer: see below.

10. Sunnis can’t fight a successful civil war when they only number 15% of the population (down from 20%, due to death and fleeing of the country).

Did you know that the Sunnis still actually believe that they are the majority population? On top of that, even if that weren’t the case, you don’t declare a jihad because you have numbers on your side. Who needs numbers when you have God?

As for your conclusions well…
Conclusion

If the USA withdraws, a civil war of sorts could begin. It will be short and bloody, and the Sunnis will lose. That war would be a humanitarian problem, and a geopolitical problem if other countries become involved, which is likely. AQ and its’ backers are a geopolitical problem. This gives the USA three good reasons to stay for now.

Actually I agree with you here. It’s a bloody mess and it will be one no matter what we do. I still say that containment is a better answer. Why? Well, as long as we remain in Iraq, crazy people like Osama Bin Laden (remember that guy?) will have a much easier time recruiting new troops (in fact that’s what our recent intel has shown). After all, before we declared war on them, they were just “some group of crazy radicals with a crazy radical agenda,” but now they are the proclaimed enemies of the great white Satan. I’ve often heard that you can judge a man by the quality of his enemies. Well, that rag-tag group of crazies? Their enemy is the sole remaining super power in the world. That’s basic advertising. You NEVER stack yourself up against your actual competition… no… you compare your product to “The Leading Brands,” and when “The Leading Brands” actually stoop to acknowledge you… well that just makes your case.
So, the US should back off redeploy continue to train Iraqi troops. Our message to the world should be, “When we see bugs we crush them. The rebuilding is up to you.” Better late than never. If Iran or Turkey wants to move in with their military, well… our beat-stick is suddenly unburdened again, rested, resupplied, and in their back yard.

An aside: It’s not an occupation when a government has forces working in a country at the invitation and consent of the two major parties within an elected government of the host country. Neither the Sunni nor the Shia contingent of the Iraqi government has made any move to ask the USA to leave. The Shias will be first to do so.

As for this Aside… as long as the Iraqis continue to question the legitimacy of their own government… Well, this statement looks just like one that could have been made by the Romans in Gaul or Hitler in Vichy France… If it looks like you set up the government, and you are, in fact, supporting it against its own civvies with your troops… well it don’t look to good.
As for the second part of this aside… so what if the Shias do ask us to leave and the Sunnis don’t. what then?

As for the rest of your argument, let’s start here:

I did acknowledge above that not every dictatorship needs our immediate military attention to thwart their expansion. As you might say, only the “crazies” do that … but today, as we saw on 11 Sept 2001, the “crazies” can leverage technology and the freedom-of-movement (that can’t be shut off without choking off the global economy) and kill as never before.
You willing to take that kind of hit … again?

I think this argument is deeply flawed (in relation to Iraq) because it resurrects the tired old argument that Sadaam had anything whatever to do with 9/11… Even Bush has given up on that tired old horse.
HOWEVER, I agree with you as this argument DOES apply to Afghanistan— the forgotten war. That’s where all of our forces and resources should be concentrated. Why? Because that was where the Taliban was based… and is now making a resurgence because we can’t support two wars at the same time. Another historical mistake.
So, to answer your question, it’s BECAUSE I’m not “willing to take that kind of hit … again.” That I am against our “Iraq strategy.” Sadaam had no capability of reaching out beyond his borders to hit us, and it turns out that we knew that then. We had enough problems before the Iraq war without waking that one up.

I ask again: If a few dozen guys and $1M dollars produced the national trauma of 11 September 2001, why does it make sense to trust someone of like mind with control of a soverign, wealthy, technically-advanced nation … and if it doesn’t make sense, what do you propose to DO about it, since leaving things alone worked so well with those few dozen guys?
Your suggestion to let ‘em fight it out, is conferring that trust upon the victor … whether or not they are of like mind with the thugs and fanatics, when it comes to life and liberty. Is that the stew you really want to see made in the pressure cooker?
To the first half of this question why compare apples and oranges? Terrorists are a non-state entity. So, there is no direct way to deal with them… hell, you can’t even find them. Fortuneatly, these guys WERE state sponsored, and we even knew which state… AFGHANISTAN!
Iraq… is a country. It had a government, and we were able to examine it before the war. We (through Hans Blix) were aware of their capabilities (though we decided that we were misinformed because some guy that was tortured into giving all sorts of confessions most of which PS we knew to be lies… therefore the code name: Curveball… told us that he knew better) and so we “f”ed up big time.
As for the second half of your question, I suppose the answer is: yes. At some point we have to rely on real nationalist sentiment coming from the people of that country AND their ability to back that sentiment up. The tree of freedom is watered with the blood of Patriots, sure, but the Iraqi tree has to be watered with Iraqi blood. We got rid of their dictator. They now have over 200,000 US trained troops, and a Constitution. They don’t have an imperial colonial power trying to kill them. That’s a hell of a lot more than we had at the start.
This isn’t 1917-1932, Crunchy — we aren’t in the business of empire. What we are in the business of, is the establishment of UNIVERSAL, PROVEN principles of quality governance within a dysfunctional nation, in order to establish conditions for a sustainable peace.
Ie Nation-building. This is 1917-1932. We are trying to bring the benefits of our superior culture to the heathens in the sand. “WOGS begin at Calais.” Democracy is a noble experiment whose ideals should be infectious. I like to think that they are. However, Freedom cannot be enforced. Do I believe in the values that we are trying to impart? Yes, but I cannot believe that this is an effective strategy for imparting them. The very idea that we will “stay here ‘till you get it right.” Is just absurd.

These principles transcend culture … and work wherever they are implemented, as long as they are given the breathing space from thuggery and fanaticism long enough to take root and gain the capability of defending themselves. These principles DO have a place in the MidEast — for they apply to ALL MEN, as our own founders noted.
Most revolutions that come to mind did not arise from “breathing space.” Quite the opposite. Most revolutions arise from oppression and repression and blood and brutality. Without those things there is no need for a revolution in the first place. Yes, these principles of freedom and democracy have a place in every corner of the globe, but they have to be earned in a deliberate and painful manner. This method stinks of nobless oblige, and I think that is more offensive to any revolutionary than a turned back.
… in Japan, Germany, the Pacific Rim, and Eastern Europe … because we stayed involved in the confrontation of our enemies, long enough to see rights-respecting governance replace the “alternatives” there.
Where were the terrorists? Where were the people trying to kill us after the war was won? Where were the people so desperate to be rid of us that they destroyed their own infrastructure? The riots? Where was the religious war between the perceived occupier and the occupied? How badly did Europe and Japan not want us there?
Where we have failed, is where we have not stayed involved … either “contracting” the work out to proxies, or ignoring the dysfunctional outright. We sought stability … instead of sustainable peace … because we thought that way we could avoid the direct and decisive military conflict that is seen by our Best and Brightest as “below” them, and/or a sign of “failure” on our part. We got neither stability, nor peace, as a result. The paragidm had to change.
YES. Absolutely the paradigm had to change. Absolutely. The role we played in Mideast politics was a sham and a shame, so change had to happen, but this was not it. You get more flies with honey than with vinegar. Just because our previous system of dealing with middle eastern governments has been marred by corruption and greed, doesn’t mean that we couldn’t have created a better alternative. Relative to the amount of time that we have been screwing around there in cloak and dagger AND overt military fashion, our diplomatic efforts didn’t last very long. And, in the end we certainly didn’t come up with a very creative, innovative, or even well-planned solution. This is NOT the high ground. Intention counts for very little when the stakes are so large. Especially when the planning was so obviously flawed.

anonymous,

here it is from the post…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051000387.html

Here’s the best one… an interview with McCain on Russert

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/05/13/mccain-dismisses-democrat_n_48356.html

Casebolt,

If our congress passes a resolution that is not supported by the executive… should that resolution still be given notice?

What if a Bill only passes by a “slim majority?” Should that bill then be discarded? In our system, a slim majority is often all we can get (and we only get that because of the wheeling and dealing that goes on behind the scenes) why should there system be any different?

Sure we could “just remove the Al Sadr supporters,” but, well, they WERE elected. I mean, we could also just remove the Democratic party in the states… or the Independents… or the Republicans… what’s the difference?

In a Democracy, we don’t get the government that is BEST for us, but we DO get the government that we deserve. That way, at the end of the day, we can’t blame our failings on some outside force… Nope, its all our fault. That’s one lesson that every fledgling Democracy needs to learn… just ask Palestine.

The Shia United Iraqi Alliance party won the majority position in parliament with 48% of the vote in 2005… with 3 major parties (and many minor parties), that seems like a pretty good voice, if not a mandate. If we deny that voice, aren’t we just invalidating the government that we spent so much putting into place?

We can lump them in with whomever we please, but this resolution is the result of the democratic system that we helped put in place and enact. To deny their validity because we don’t degree with their decision is a classically Imperial move… Obviously, the WOGs just don’t know what’s best for them…

(Oh, and take your time on the other reply, Rich, I’m not in any rush… it’s always good to find someone whose tone and perspective you can respect… even in disagreement. I look forward to your reply.)

Those boots appear to be the Corcoran® 9 in. Tan Suede Professional Tactical Boot
http://www.uscav.com/Productinfo.aspx?productID=9242&TabID=1&CatID=6
Not standard issue but DOD approved for use in combat.
Very very comfortable. I have two pair myself, and I can’t think of a better boot to wear in the desert. They weigh less than a pond, feel like moccasins, speed laces.