posted
Looking at people's signitures reveals fascinating information about their mind-set.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
People's signatures can also reveal fascinating things about other peoples' mind-sets.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Without going too deep into it tonight (I might respond with a larger post in 24 hours), I would respond that Sun Tzu was in his deepest insights a radically compassionate warrior in the model of Sts. Augustine and Aquinas. I guess I've been outed as firmly in the "just war" camp. Simply because someone ponders war and considers in historical implications (like in the first quote) wouldn't make someone a warmonger (not that any one of you has implied such, I want to be clear on that). I would just point out that we are all by virtue of this string pondering it.
The second quote of his could be read two ways at two extremes: (1) make war unnecessary by some degree of pacifism, thereby ceasing to be a threat to potential enemies, or, alternatively (2) make war unnecessary by removing the conditions in adversaries' situations such that they no longer are compelled (by whatever intrinsic or extrinsic reason) to wage war upon you.
There is a middle ground on this, yes, I know, but I thought I would illustrate the extremes and let the chips fall somewhere in between.
Last night I had actually started a very long response to another post on this section of Flare along these lines, but it became too unwieldy a topic to do in one post and I abandoned it. I just didn't feel like trying to defend the war according to the just war tradition in a single post when I probably wasn't going to change any minds or even merit responses by my fellow Flare-ites. However, if anyone would like to engage in a dialogue, I'm willing to have a go at it in the interest of helping others understand the another side.
Sorry this post doesn't get deeper, and I certainly would have more to say if it was 12 noon and not 12 midnight, but forgive my fatigue from a long day behind me and a long day ahead of me. I promise more if anyone wants to talk more. I just thought you all might like to hear from someone who would probably count as "from the other side."
(On one final note, the signature was a bit inadvertant. I had forgotten about it from when I had made it years ago [have I been on this board for years?] when I was still an undergraduate. Funny how these things come back to you. No regrets, but certainly new insights on what I've learned in the interim.)
-------------------- "Warfare is the greatest affair of state, the basis of life and death, the Tao to survivial or extinction. It must be thoroughly pondered and analyzed."
"...attaining one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the pinnacle of excellence. Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence."
-Sun Tzu, The Art of War, 6th century B.C.E.
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I have more, but two things stike me as worth replying to quickly.
quote:Originally posted by David Sands: (ever think about a career as a paralegal?)
Yes, actually. The professional historian thing didn't work out and I'm surrounded by lawyers.
But then some bright person suggested I try to get a MLS and then UCLA was negative on the admissions status so now I'm back to looking elsewhere.
Stupid UCLA.
quote:I disagree with Bush a lot of issues, but none of those is going to matter a damn bit if we get blown to smitherines because Kerry is willing to soft pedal Iran and not prevent a regime that honest-to-God thinks we are the Great Satan from getting enriched uranium it can give to any organization who agrees we should be fried to a crisp because of who we are.
If you're suggesting that Mr. Kerry is going to be worse in dealing with a nuclear threats from Axis of Evil countries, you need to seriously ask yourself where Mr. Bush has been these 3 years.
Especially as regards North Korea.
How's that stepping away from the Agreed Framework going? Feel any safer?
So, thinking of words to describe the foreign policy of Mr. Bush's Administration...I'm going with muddled and incoherent.
And, yes, I think John Kerry can do better.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't think anyone here would disagree that a war can be just. And I'm sure you'll find no quibblers over the idea that if anywhere needed to be invaded and rid of a cruel despot, it was Iraq. But the undeniable fact remains, the President couldn't care less about the plight of the people in Iraq. He invaded for his own selfish personal motives (and those of the people who pull his strings) and lied about his reasons for doing so. And as a result has not made the problems facing America better but in fact worse and added to the sum total of people actively wanting to see your nation come to harm, and alienated the rest of the world in the process.
And no ah-so, chop-socky, Confucius-he-say bullcrap is going to excuse that. I mean, for fuck's sake, Sun-Tzu? That's something you read when you're a student trying to appear deep and mysterious; then you put it away and grow the fuck up. The alternative leads to shite Wesley Snipes movies.
posted
Lee, I would respond with a more eloquent post, but I am running out the door. However, I found these two articles helpful on the issue of Bush's motive.
As for alienating the rest of the world, I will have to leave that one for later. Ditto for Sun Tzu, though I definitely have a response on that coming in the next day or two.
-------------------- "Warfare is the greatest affair of state, the basis of life and death, the Tao to survivial or extinction. It must be thoroughly pondered and analyzed."
"...attaining one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the pinnacle of excellence. Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence."
-Sun Tzu, The Art of War, 6th century B.C.E.
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
"I for one think that the war on Islamofascism is the most important issue of this election. Because I think it should be prosecuted with vigor, I have no problem it being brought up as a reason to vote for the incumbant."
Then I am interested to know why you think The War is a more important issue than, say, foreign relations, when anyone whose view of reality isn't obstructed by a billion-barrel oil stain can see that global-scale terrorism cannot be fought (let alone defeated) without first addressing the question of why "Islamofascism" is running so rampant out there and that formulating the right answer to its popularity will require international input instead of MOABs, or why you think The Incumbant has prosecuted The War well at all and can be trusted to do so again in the future given what his little stint in Iraq or his fantastically diplomatic attitude re: North Korea have so far done to promote Peace & Love & Understanding worldwide.
And sorry, no numbered list this time.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by David Sands: 1. It depends on how you think it should be remembered.
I believe that that day should be remembered. It can certainly challenge one, should one need such inspiration, to prosecute the War On Terror�.
However, I think the way the Republicans used the memory in the course of their convention is best summed up by Chris Suellentrop of Slate when he described New York Gov. George Pataki�s speech as:
quote:...a repugnant politicization of Sept. 11.
One can argue that the day is indeed political, and still think the Republicans have crossed the line and have moved into crass exploitation.
Remember, they were only in New York just days before the 3rd anniversary because of the fine convention facilities.
quote:I don't remember who first said it, but I think it's telling that when Democrats thought about it at their convention, a hush of respect came over the room. When Zell Miller talked about it at the Republican convention, there were hollers of defiance.
I, for one, don't necessarily equate a convention inspired barbaric yalp with successful or coherent policy to deal with world terror.
quote:I for one think that the war on Islamofascism is the most important issue of this election.
It is indeed an important issue. And it is indeed not the only issue.
The the military may well be an important factor in this generalized conflict. I do, however, think the United States, through force of arms only, is not going to defeat Islamofascism.
The idea of a Perma-War on Terror� has little currency with me.
The real conflict is within Islam itself. The conflict is between modernizing forces and those who feel left behind. And until mainstream Islam is ready to put an end to Islamic radicalism, we�re pretty much digging a hole is loose sand thinking that military force is the way to go.
It helps to avoid other issues and wrap yourself in the memory of 9/11 when you pretty much have two main policies:
Tax cuts
Attacking Iraq
quote:1.a. Depending on what you think the proper role of the national government is vis-a-vis the states, opinions tend to run one way or the other on the issue of education.
Education policy was simply a McGuffin. I could have mentioned the Administration discussing a proposed Constitutional amendment to promote rural pencil sharpening, and they�ll link it to 9/11 and the War On Terror.�
quote:"Isn't that the ultimate homeland security? To defend the sanctity of marriage?" - Senator Rick Santorum, equating his campaign against marriage rights for gays with the war on terror.
quote:Or better yet (at the risk of going off topic), vote for candidates that would enact laws for vouchers or charter schools.
Yeah. Or don't.
quote:4. This is a phenomenon I've seen elsewhere. No one who actually knows anything about how politics work think that policy is supposed to be the centerpiece of conventions.
Mr. Bush assiduously avoids policy.
At all times. In convention or not. He doesn't do policy.
As I�ve heard said, if this election is about issues, the John Kerry wins. So it�s in Mr. Bush�s self interest to pound the War President� theme and for his surrogates to keep saying how steely and resolved he was on 9/11 and in the aftermath.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
William Saletan at Slate gets it about right.
quote:NEW YORK�For $2.4 trillion, guess what word�other than "a," "and," and "the"�occurs most frequently in the acceptance speech George W. Bush delivered tonight.
The word is "will." It appears 76 times. This was a speech all about what Bush will do, and what will happen, if he becomes president.
Except he already is president. He already ran this campaign. He promised great things. They haven't happened. So, he's trying to go back in time. He wants you to see in him the potential you saw four years ago. He can't show you the things he promised, so he asks you to envision them. He asks you to be "optimistic." He asks you to have faith.
"Since 2001, Americans have been given hills to climb and found the strength to climb them," said Bush. "Now, because we have made the hard journey, we can see the valley below. Now, because we have faced challenges with resolve, we have historic goals within our reach and greatness in our future."
Recession. Unemployment. Corporate fraud. A war based on false premises that has cost us $200 billion and nearly a thousand American lives. They're all hills we've "been given to climb." It's as though Bush wasn't president. As though he didn't get the tax cuts he wanted. As though he didn't bring about postwar Iraq and authorize the planning for it. All this was "given," and now Bush can show up, three and a half years into his term, and start solving the problems some other president left behind.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Jay, I'm sorry to hear that your efforts to become a professional historian failed. I'm also sorry UCLA didn't work. I know a little bit about not getting in the first time, so I can imagine some of the frustration you feel. Good luck on whichever path you choose. (If this is all old news, forgive me: I've been out of the loop with law school for three years.)
Regarding your immediate comment about what Bush has been doing about Iran, I think we both understand something has to be done. But the reason I don't think Bush has been delinquent on Iran is that we would never have been able to fight both Iraq and Iran at the same time. People complain about an overstretched military. This is where that overstretching hurts. We can't fight all our battles at once. I noticed the other day that Kerry came out with an initial take on the Iran situation, allowing them to keep their reactors but with some kind of locks on their spent fuel. (I think they did the same in North Korea for a while with satalite links. Someone correct me if I have remembered incorrectly.) I'm really uncomfortable leaving that kind of infrastructure, especially in a nation that energy rich. It really stretches "dual-use" pretty thin. But give me a few days to catch up on Kerry's Iran policy and I will have more to say.
As for North Korea, I honestly don't know what to say because I haven't followed that theater of conflict well. I don't know enough to give a sophisticated opinion on what to do with them. So on this, I really can't give you a meaty response. However, if desperate for a snapshot answer on what very little I know, I think there's huge potential for failure no matter what course of action either candidate would take. So on that vote, neither candidate has an advantage in my view.
Lee, on making lots more people ready to kill us, I think a rational case can be made either way. And because we don't really have polling that I know of on who is willing to do what to US interests, I won't try to argue over that point using the only available tool left: rhetoric.
However, alienating the rest of the world is relative to me. The starting point for me is Lord Palmerston's axiom: nations have no permanent allies, only permanent interests. What that idea gets at is that there is no "ratchet" of concordance with nations' aims. Just because someone once shared our aims does not mean that they will also work to help us achieve our aims in the future. I suspect that what most people who say we are alienating the world mean is that we no longer abide the objections of the Rhineland countries, Russia, and China as to invading Iraq. However, there are a lot of other nations that do support us. Here is a list from list from the Heritage Foundation as of March 2003 along with summaries of what their support entails:
quote: Afghanistan: Afghanistan has pledged its support for the U.S. backed effort to disarm Iraq. May open airspace to U.S. and allied military flights. Albania: Offered to send troops. Approved U.S. use of airspace and bases. Angola:* Australia: Sent 2,000-strong force of elite SAS troops, fighter jets and warships to the Gulf. Azerbaijan:* Bahrain: Headquarters of the U.S. Fifth Fleet. Bulgaria: Offered use of airspace, base and refueling for U.S. warplanes; sent 150 non-combat troops specializing in chemical and biological warfare decontamination. Canada:* Sent military planners to join U.S. counterparts at their command post in Qatar. A destroyer and two frigates sent to the region could protect U.S. ships. Colombia:* Croatia: Airspace and airports open to civilian transport planes from the coalition. Czech Republic: Sent non-combat troops specializing in chemical warfare decontamination in response to U.S. request. Denmark: The government decided to take part in the military action with submarine, surface ships, and a medical team comprised of 70 elite Jaegerkorps soldiers. Dominican Republic:* El Salvador* Eritrea* Estonia* Ethiopia: Ethiopia has publicly pledged its support for the U.S. backed effort to disarm Iraq. Georgia: Georgia has expressed strong support for the U.S. attack on Iraq, and has offered both its airspace and military bases to support the campaign.3 Greece: U.S. naval base in Crete serves U.S. sixth fleet and supports Navy and Air Force intelligence-gathering planes. Honduras:* Hungary: Hosts a U.S. base where Iraqi exiles are trained for possible post-war administrative roles. NATO can use the country�s roads, railways and airspace to carry military support for Turkey�s defense. May open airspace for U.S. military flights. Iceland: * Italy: Offered logistical help and use of military bases and ports under longstanding NATO commitments. Japan: Japan expressed unequivocal support for U.S. plans to forcibly disarm Iraq. Will provide post-conflict assistance. Jordan: Opened its airspace to coalition planes; hosts U.S. troops carrying out search and rescue operations in western Iraq and manning a Patriot anti-missile defense system. Kuwait: Hosts coalition forces massed for an invasion. Latvia: Government has decided to ask parliament to authorize the deployment of a small number of troops. Lithuania: Authorized use of airspace for U.S. backed mission to disarm Iraq. Macedonia* Marshall Islands:* Micronesia:* Mongolia:* Netherlands: A few hundred Dutch troops are stationed in Turkey to operate three Patriot missile defense systems, allowing movement of U.S. troops and supplies from Germany through the Netherlands en route to the Persian Gulf. Nicaragua* Norway: Offered to send 10,000 chemical warfare suits to Turkey. Philippines: The Philippine National Security Council offered political support for a U.S. led war to disarm Iraq. Poland: To deploy up to 200 troops in the Gulf region, which will perform an unspecified non-combat role, supporting the U.S.-led offensive. A few dozen Grom elite commando troops and transport ship already stationed in the Gulf area, as part of the Afghanistan campaign, could be enlisted. Portugal: Made available NATO air bases and an air base in the Azores. Qatar: Hosts a mobile HQ for U.S. Central Command; allowed Washington to expand an airfield to handle more combat jets. Romania: Airspace and a base open to U.S. warplanes; sent non-combat specialists in chemical decontamination, medics, engineers and military police in response to a U.S. request. Will make available Black Sea air and naval bases. Rwanda:* Saudi Arabia: U.S. and British planes use its Prince Sultan Air Base to enforce a "no-fly zone" over southern Iraq. Singapore:* Slovakia: Sent non-combat troops specializing in chemical warfare decontamination in response to a U.S. request. Has approved U.S. flyovers and use of its bases. Slovenia: Signed the Vilnius 10 declaration supporting the United States Solomon Islands: South Korea: Seoul will dispatch some 500 army engineers to support a U.S. led war on Iraq, in addition to post-war assistance. Spain: Strongest ally of the United States and Britain. Promised use of its NATO bases for a strike on Iraq. Spain will send a medical support vessel equipped with nuclear, biological and chemical treatment facilities. A frigate and 900 troops will accompany the support vessel in the event of a conflict. Taiwan: Taipei opened its airspace to U.S. military aircraft. Turkey: Hosts U.S. planes enforcing "no-fly" zone in northern Iraq. Turkey has granted the United States the use of its airspace.) Uganda:* Ukraine: Agreed to U.S. request that it send chemical warfare and nuclear decontamination experts United Arab Emirates: Base for U.S. reconnaissance aircraft and refueling; host to an estimated 3,000 western troops. Has pledged 4,000 troops supported by Apache attack helicopters, Leclerc tanks, BMP3 amphibious armored vehicles, a missile boat and a frigate to defend Kuwait in case of war in Iraq. United Kingdom: Washington's chief ally on Iraq has sent or committed 45,000 military personnel, planes and warships. Uzbekistan*
* Countries mentioned by Secretary Powell.
Information was taken from here. (Spain has pulled out, but I thought it was useful to list that it supported us until 3/11.)
While it is true that some of those nations have comparatively little to offer the US while fighting in Iraq, some do: Poland ended up sending the Grom commandos. Denmark, the UK, Australia, and the Netherlands all sent top notch forces.
Now, listing all those countries doesn't really answer the question of whether that is sufficient support since Russia, France, Germany, and China don't approve. But my short answer to that objection is that the history of the UN Security Council acting as an affirmative agent of collective standards which might otherwise demand response is slim. Other than the Korean War, the Gulf War, and the bombing of Serbia, it has never been able to mediate conflicting Great Powers who have stakes in conflicts. Though it was envisioned as such by men like FDR and Churchill, most scholars of international studies generally agree that the arrangement of the voting power of the Security Council is not representative of what ought to happen, but merely what the parties want to happen.
I also don't think it's much of an objectiont to say we should have waited to get French and German troops. Military commentators around the globe have remarked on the sorry states of those militaries relative to the expertise of the US, UK, and Australian troops. I doubt that adding them into the equation would make a marked difference in the peacibleness of the Baathist fighters trying to blow everything apart.
As for Sun Tzu, I'll admit I was disappointed to see that movie steal such a great title. But, then again, Hollywood has recycled lots of names for movies before. (Just type "Gladiator" into IMDB.) But to respond to your substantive point, I would say that Sun Tzu is still taught at all the military academies, as well as at the advanced academies like the US Army War College. And Ho Chi Minh and Mao Tse Tung also used it to win their wars. I must disagree with you. He is still relevant. And certainly more useful as a system of warfare than Clausewitz or the distant third, Jomini.
Cartman: I think the war is foreign relations. You stated, "global-scale terrorism cannot be fought (let alone defeated) without first addressing the question of why 'Islamofascism' is running so rampant out there and that formulating the right answer to its popularity will require international input." I fail to see why we must address whatever econo-political problems yielded Islamofascism first. Waiting around to try diplomatic and cultural transformation of the underlying conditions would not stop those already hell-bent on killing now. It's not a matter of choosing one theater to the exclusion of others until you find a silver bullet answer to the problem. I don't think anyone in the national security establishment, be they Ds or Rs, really thinks just trying one method of engagement is going to suffice. Granted, some will think some forms will be more effective than others, but saying we have to look to underlying causes first has never been a winning strategy in any war. The most effective multi-pronged way of warfare similar to the way we are fighting right now is the Philippine insurrections of the very early twentieth century. While the US Army fought the rebels in the mountains, engineers followed after and built infrastructure like roads and schools that eliminated many of the conditions the rebels had been complaining about. It worked then. It can work again.
Back to Jay: I don't really see how a verbal showing of solidarity behind defeating our enemies qualifies as "barbaric."
What I was trying to get at with that vignette was that the responses of the delegates indicates the general mindset of the parties who are represented by the candidates. I think the appropriateness of the image of 9/11 is linked to what you think the appropriate response is. I for one don't want to sit, grouse, and examine the sociological implications of acts like 9/11 in the hopes of some collaberative understanding and harmonious consensus. I want to get even, prevent them from doing this to other nations, and thereby increase by some degree what justice is found in the world. That's a feeling of aroused anger, not pensive sorrow.
To both Jay and Cartman: I don't know if this would represent some kind of middle ground, but read this and tell me if this is what you had in mind.
Back once again to Jay: I will freely admit, I used to think like you that a president who didn't do policy ought not to be as worthy of respect as one who does. However, I learned a few things in law school working at the side of one of the top lobbyists in Washington who was nice enough to commute down to Alabama every week to teach us. Reagan (I think) observed that the people you choose are the policy. No effective president does policy. What some of my MBA friends were telling me of why they thought Clinton wasn't as effective as he could have been was because he tried to do too much himself. Intellectuals loved it that he wined and dined them, but his White House was regarded by many to be one of the most ineffective ones of this half-century. I would also point out that even most members of Congress don't read everything. Remember the scene in Farenheit 9/11 where John Conyers told Michael Moore that no one there read everything? If you want to read more on this, try the last chapter of this book. (The author is very liberal. Even he says presidents just don't have the time to sit and think about issues and indefinitely as people like us do periodically throughout the day.) So ulimtately, the response to "Bush doesn't do policy" is, so what? No president who gets things done ever does. They provide the basic direction they want and tell their subordinates to implement it. Bush has his priorities set. He has chosen the people he wants to make his vision happen. So whatever relative lack of wonkishness he has really isn't as consequential as most people think.
OK, and to respond lastly to the Slate piece in simple declarative sentences... Economic health is not merely a measure of jobs. Corporate fraud is not something that really could have been prevented by Bush. (Sorry, still looking for the best of only a thousand anti-Sarbanes-Oxley articles to link here; give me time.) Not all reasons for the war were based on false premises. It will take decades to sort out which groups Saddam was working with (we know Abu Nidal for sure). We needed to deliver humanitarian support. And we needed to stop someone who had tortured thousands of people. For the aforementioned reasons, I just don't see Saletan's article as demonstrating a dearth of accomplishments.
-------------------- "Warfare is the greatest affair of state, the basis of life and death, the Tao to survivial or extinction. It must be thoroughly pondered and analyzed."
"...attaining one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the pinnacle of excellence. Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence."
-Sun Tzu, The Art of War, 6th century B.C.E.
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Back to Jay: I don't really see how a verbal showing of solidarity behind defeating our enemies qualifies as "barbaric."
Did you actually watch Zell Miller's speech?
I'm sticking with barbaric yalp.
It was quite the angry and mendacious public face the Republicans put on their convention with his keynote address.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:That macho invocation of the Marines was a classic: the kind of militarist swagger that this convention endorses and uses as a bludgeon against its opponents. But the term "occupation," of course, need not mean the opposite of liberation. I have used the term myself and I deeply believe that coalition troops have indeed liberated Afghanistan and Iraq. By claiming that the Democrats were the enemies of the troops, traitors, quislings and wimps, Miller did exactly what he had the audacity to claim the Democrats were doing: making national security a partisan matter. I'm not easy to offend, but this speech was gob-smackingly vile.
Andrew Sullivan on Miller. That Marine got a smack down from a fag. Go Sullivan!
Your basic, typical, human reaction. Sure. But a guy who has been trusted with the charge of the most powerful military force in the world should not let such a thing even enter the least bit into his decision whether or not to use that force.
That, and all those Iraqis we killed never actually did anything to us.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Oh, there's just too much and I don't want to sit at the keyboard for 2 hours typing a response to it all.
So, as much as I would prefer to write long, artful paragraphs full of intricate arguments to rebut various thing, I'm going with the old Omega Pull-Quote argumentation technique.
quote:But the reason I don't think Bush has been delinquent on Iran is that we would never have been able to fight both Iraq and Iran at the same time.
So, here we have two countries on the verge of becoming nuclear powers and I don�t see the Administration doing all that much diplomatically as regards either one.
Sort of makes our preemptive invasion of Iraq and our resulting overextended military even more problematic doesn�t it.
quote:I fail to see why we must address whatever econo-political problems yielded Islamofascism first.
That one nearly made my eyes bug out.
You have no reason to present the situation as an either/or argument.
We must, absolutely must, deal with social, cultural, economic and political issues in the Muslim world...or do what we can to help them deal with the situation and change it for the better.
If, to boil it down to a simplistic point, young men are trained at Madrasas to hate the West and all that we stand for you can:
A) Try to kill them all when they 'graduate' which will pretty much land you in a perpetual state of violence.... B) Try to help the young men find other means to educate themselves and encourage states to democratize through diplomatic and economic means....
Or...
C)Kill terrorists when they pop up AND actively work to help countries modernize and democratize.
I don't see Mr. Bush doing much of the second.
quote:Granted, some will think some forms will be more effective than others, but saying we have to look to underlying causes first has never been a winning strategy in any war.
We're not at war Honduras here, so the nation/state warfare scheme doesn't seem to apply in total.
This is an conflict deeply rooted in ideology and the United States and Great Britian can't destroy all of Islam. So while it is important to be guarded and use military force when necessary, you have to find the roots of the ideology as quick as possible and find ways to deal with that.
They are massively out-gunned and they know it, so if you have to ask yourself at some point, hopefully early in the process, why they keep coming and getting killed.
quote:No effective president does policy.
Well, I'd challenge that just on it's face. Washington, Lincoln, TR, FDR, Truman, LBJ, all did policy. And they were all, in their own way, effective.
I can't think of a president of the last half century so unable to communicate his Administration's policy and so seemingly uninterested in finding out what it should be.
If Mr. Bush is the CEO president he touts himself as, then he's certainly of the new breed, which apparently counts former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney as a member. These are CEO's who are unaware of the corporate direction and when presented with malfeasance from subordinates, they disclaim all responsibility due to lack of knowledge.
Mr. Bush seems to me to be quite a bad CEO.
I, for one, have no problem wanting more from a president.
quote:They provide the basic direction they want and tell their subordinates to implement it. Bush has his priorities set. He has chosen the people he wants to make his vision happen.
That, to my way of thinking, given the incoherent foreign and domestic policy of this Administration, is an excellent reason not to vote for Mr. Bush.
quote:Economic health is not merely a measure of jobs.
Since I don't presently have one, and I'm looking, and I'm not finding one, it sure means a great deal to me.
Then again, I've seen quite a few Ferrari's lately, so someone's doing well.
quote:Corporate fraud is not something that really could have been prevented by Bush.
I lay the deregulatory climate and the stepping away of government oversight squarely at the feet of Republicans just like Mr. Bush.
quote:Not all reasons for the war were based on false premises.
Yes, I remember, was it in the 2002 State of the Union or the 2003, that he justified the preemptive invasion of Iraq on the grounds we needed to promote democracy in the Middle East?
The Administration certainly came up with post-invasion reasons to justify what we did...and some of them are perfectly right and good.
Saddam Hussein was indeed a bad man. The women of Afghanistan did need our assistance.
But it Mr. Bush purposfully avoided public debate on those issues prior to the invasion and chose instead more disingenious arguments.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
