Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
mrsx said:Thank you for moving beyond the politics of personal distruction and back to the issue. I am surprised to see you citing Blair's re-election because a) I thought you didn't care what furriners thought about our invasion of Iraq and b) Blair lost both seats and credibility over the Iraq issue. He won despite Iraq not because of it. The Conservatives did not oppose Iraq so the anti-war vote had no place to go and most Labor voters didn't want to commit suicide on important social issues by throwing their vote away on a 3rd or 4th party candidate that would only help the Conservatives.
As for Bush's "mandate" and "political capital," he did everything he could to avoid making the election about Iraq. Vague references to "the War on Terror," shameful sliming of Kerry's Viet Nam service (I'd agree Kerry was a bit glory hungry but he did volunteer, did go there, did get shot at, all of which is a lot more than Bush could say).
Which brings us back to "values voters" and the issue of gay marriage. Everyone from Carl Rove to the TV pundits agrees that this, not the war in Iraq, was what gave Bush his tiny margin of victory in Ohio and thus the election. Bush himself has attributed that margin of victory to the Catholic Cardinals who announced that Kerry should not be given the Eucharist. It is really a stretch to say that Bush squeaked into a second term because the country backed him on Iraq. We've learned (after the election curiously enough) that the information he gave us about Saddam etc. was "flawed." Whatever they thought on election day, most voters think it was a mistake in hindsight. Opinion in the rest of the world, including our brave allies in Palau and Togo, has taken an even dimmer view of the whole business. The Spanish government fell because of its involvement. The Italian government fell apart because of sending troops to Iraq "to die for Bush" as their press puts it. Cram that in your war pipe and suck it!
BTW I have no problem with the legality of what Bush has done (morality, definitely an issue for me) and, although I disagree with you, I respect your view on the Iraq policy. The point I am trying to make - and I'm sorry if I get too shrill when people attack me personally and call me names - is that Bush did not follow the "Powell Doctrine" which he specifically endorsed before the election. That doctrine, as you may recall, was designed to avoid future Viet Nam type debacles and "nation building" fantasies by insisting that:
1) military intervention have broad popular support
2) overwelming military force be employed for a swift conclusion
3) the plan include a clear exit strategy at the outset.
The issue I am trying to raise is that the growing disenchantment with this botched adventure is going to splatter back on the military long after Bush is back in Crawford clearing brush or whatever. I have already seen arguments that the drop in recruiting shows that our soldiers join the service for the economic benefits not because of patriotic valor. Before you vapor lock over that one, let me state I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IS TRUE. It is evidence of who is going to carry the can (however unfairly) for this one. That is what I worry about.
I respect your right to your view. If you insist that unless I am enthusiastic about the leadership of our elected politicians I am unpatriotic and do not support our military, then you just don't understand the American system. Do you agree?
-=d=- said:Jeff - this chick REALLY needs to see Don's ppt presentation, eh?
mrsx said:I was refering to your intention to fight to keep as much of YOUR money as you possible can.
As for military service, I agree with you that the motivation is irrelevant; it's the service that counts. Most of WWII's heroes were draftees. I have no problem admitting that I joined the Navy because it seemed like the best deal. The difference between an all-volunteer force and a standing army of mercenaries is one of political perspective, not paychecks. I'm very concerned that opinion is going to turn against the military and that they will be denigrated for a situation in which they acted honorably and with success but which the politicians screwed up.
I don't know why you have to try to be sarcastic and condescending. It doesn't strengthen your argument and it makes it harder for me to focus on the issues.
rtwngAvngr said:Again, your dire predictions have no basis in fact.
The reluctance to use swift and overwhelming force is due to the knowledge that LIBS SIMILAR TO YOU, would have had a hissy fit about it. Do you agree?
I apologize if I mis-understood your post. I hope you will forgive me. The right wing deer flies are swarming around my head pretty thick this afternoon.-=d=- said:Please let me know, from now on, if you are replying to my signature, or my post, mkay?
mrsx said:It was Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, who was determined to ram through his theory of a lighter, faster military posture over the objections of Shinseki and the JCS. Shinseki, BTW, agreed with Rumsfeld about the over-all direction in which our military should evolve. .
mrsx said:I am trying to offer an analysis based on facts that have already happened. As for dire predictions, we are now seeing the dire predictions of those who opposed the invasion of Iraq coming true. Your pontification about what I have said stands in sharp contrast to my citation of specific events logically connected to support my position. Although I prefer the pontifical thumb sucking to all the name calling, it is just another indication that you have nothing much to offer to the discourse. God! this must piss you off something awful! Maybe one of your droogs can bail you out.
I do NOT agree about the force size. It wasn't anti-war protesters who made this boo-boo. It was Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, who was determined to ram through his theory of a lighter, faster military posture over the objections of Shinseki and the JCS. Shinseki, BTW, agreed with Rumsfeld about the over-all direction in which our military should evolve. As a trained professional, however, he had been taught to "pull his trees" on logistical support, protection of supply lines and approved military doctrine on force leves required for urban occupation and pacification. Rumsfeld's arrogance violated the separation between political and professional military spheres. He had the right to tell the Army to win the war. He had no right to tell them how to do it. He bears the blame, not the peaceniks.
mrsx said:I'd like to see it if you think it would help me understand your point of view. I'm concerned because it is more than two years and getting worse rather than better. Fundamental failures in intelligence and judgement attended the beginning of this mess and I see no evidence that they have caught up with the curve. Just a few months ago Rummy was saying that our enemy was "a handful of dead-enders." Now it turns out that the resistance is much larger, better organized and better financed that we ever imagined.
We played whack-a-mole in Fallujah and it got us nothing but more resistance. We can barely defend our own folks, much less protect the appointed authorities in Baghdad.
Yes, the elections were a nice day. Saddam got a much higher turn out.
I don't think most Iraqis have any idea of what we mean by democracy, and to the exted they understand us, they don't want it. Right now, they want jobs, electricity, sanitation and security. We can't give it and we are "infidel" patrons of Israel. What benchmark can you give me so I'll now we are good to go?
The longing for liberty burns in the heart of every man (and woman).rtwngAvngr said:Mrsx, I must say, your ability to see the bad in everything is astounding. Elections in Iraq was a wonderful advancement for the whole region. OR do you believe democracy and freedom eventually devolve to corporatism and should therefore be abandoned? That's a popular absurd view amongs those of your ilk. Ilk. I love that word.
mrsx said:Look, I have nothing bad to say about the elections. I like elections. I think the death of Arafat was a wonderful advancement for the whole region. Bremmer and his gang set up a system in which Kurdish and Shia'a regions are over-represented in parliament at the expense of the Sunni controlled provinces. They also set a requirement for a supermajority that effectively gives the Kurdish minority a veto over the whole deal - kinda like the Democrats filibustering in our Congress if you get my drift. The result is that the elections haven't had nearly as much ooomph as they might have in moving the country towards stability. Given the religious, cultural, political and economic factors working against a "free, stable and democratic Iraq," the elections didn't stop the slide toward anarchy and an an islamist take-over.
The Middle East doesn't have any of the simple solutions the neocons would like so dearly to see work. A bunch of very smart guys like Kissinger and Scowcroft (not exactly LIBs) warned Bush that he was playing with fire. They are a lot brighter than Bush or Rice. If there was a fix to the Middle East mess, they would have found it years ago when we were stronger and our opponents weaker. The elections didn't hurt, though. That's the good news.
gop_jeff said:The resistance is shrinking daily, because our troops are doing their jobs.
That's not what the Pentagon says.
This is totally untrue. The Battle of Fallujah destroyed a major terrorist stronghold... spooked the rats out of their holes, if you will. Not to mention, we killed hundreds of terrorists and insurgents.
We destroyed a major city and created tens of thousands of refugees who hate us. The insurgents are back in Fallujah, we are not.
I'd love to see some stats on that. Or is that just a platitude?
No, it's a fact. I think Saddam got 99% ove vote just a couple of years ago. I won't bother to fact check it because I'm not suggesting that the results were a serious indication of the will of the people, just that voting doesn't have the same flavor there as it does over here.
Jobs are being created. Electricity is back to the vast majority of the country, as is security. What's more, Iraqis are taking control of their own destinies. We have delivered the most valuable gift in the world to Iraq: freedom. And you think they don't understand or want it?!?
As to Israel, did you miss the Iraqi emissary to Israel, who extended an official olive branch to them?
rtwngAvngr said:I guess everything could always be better. In lieu of the nonvision the democrats have not offered for the war on terror they wish to ignore, I guess we'll just be going with republicans for the next 50-60 years or so.
mrsx said:You won't find me endorsing the Democrats for their Bush Lite proposals. On that point we agree. The Democratic Party is the party of no ideas. The Republican Party is the party of bad ideas. It's really just one big two-headed elk (elk, I love that word) that should be called the Incumbency.
mrsx said:OK if you say so. The unemployment statistics don't bear out your rosy economic view, or are you a Haliburton employee?
The idea that the longing for liberty etc. etc. is a projection by folks like Thomas Jefferson of his own passionate longing onto cultures with very different structures. It is a very Whig idea. Most Moslems, according to scolars, have a longing for peace, justice and prosperity. Liberty as we understand in the USA is morally suspicious - as it is to the new pope. Both Benedict and Sistani don't put much value on letting people do whatever they want for its own sake; they are concerned with people doing what they think is right. They are closer to Plato than Jefferson. As for Bush, I don't think he even read the Cliff Notes!
gop_jeff said:I didn't say that their unemployment was as good as ours. I said that their economy is beginning to reap the benefits of free-market capitalism.
So you think that all Muslims are OK with being oppressed as long as they are rich? I beg to differ.
