This interlude between conference tournaments and the dance has opened up my curiosity concerning one subject in particular, the Iraq War.
If you asked most insiders prior to his election in 2000, “How much expertise and wisdom will Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld bring to the table in terms of national defense and foreign conflict?”, the answer would be “a lot”. What Bush did back then was the right thing, as the best thing an executive can do for himself is to surround him/herself with competent people who know what the job is and how to get it done. He put his faith in these two people who he had known and looked up to for many years, and who’s to say that had any of us lived in his shoes, that we wouldn’t have made the exact same choices?
Because the Iraq War is failing, but the more I read, the more I’m becoming convinced that it wasn’t the mistakes that were made along the way as much as the mission was impossible to begin with. Given an invasion with the ‘proper’ amount of troops, subtract the Abu Gharib debacle and let’s say that even half of the graft that’s taken place didn’t happen…it’s still unlikely that this mission would ever have succeeded.
Most of this has to do with the arbitrary lines drawn, which initially made Iraq the country it is today, having crunched together three ethnic groups who probably never wanted to be nationalized together in the first place. Then you add in decades of the minority group in power, a reality that will never be forgotten by the Kurds and Shiites whose families suffered under the arrangement, and the chances of bringing these people together at all, let alone at gunpoint, was undeniably risky from the start.
How would Bush have known all of this? Well, he might have listened to his father and Powell instead of Cheney and Rumsfeld, but let’s not forget that the neoconservatives had been writing about how easy it would be to accomplish this mission for years. The division began when Bush Sr. decided against invading Iraq following the first Gulf War, and the folks who thought we should have, they never stopped talking and writing about it.
Bush was convinced that his father was wrong and that it would be possible to topple Saddam and install a democratic government, while also having the US cost covered by Iraqi oil revenue, that they would be happy to provide seeing as we liberated them. We all know how it turned out, and subsequently the pages of National Review and The Weekly Standard have sworn off neoconservatism as a failure. The political heavies like William Buckley have called the effort a failure, and ideas are shifting towards another ‘great idea’, most likely having to do with with something other than education, health care or national debt.
Regardless of all this, Bush trusted in the ‘ideas’ of these men he grew up admiring, and in his shoes it most likely seemed like the only thing to do. He was duped. I hope he figures this out sometime soon.
You make sense Chris. under the perfect circumstances you describe, the invasion and democratization of Iraq would’ve been breezier.
Complicated situation. Hard to say that ousting Hussein is not a noble event, but then what? If that had been thought out a little better…
You bring up another good point – the three groups that reside in that country. Trying to repair this relationship is going to take a lot more than one counseling session.
Chris! Bravo!!!!!!!!
I agree with most of the points you made.
Where I differ is that I believe Iraq had WMD, in fact am certain they had them, but during the process from 1998-2002 they were moved-likely to Syria. Thus, I believe that Bush acted on information given him which was dated.
As to Iraq I don’t see it as a failure yet. As someone versed in history I know that determination cannot be made in the short term.
I agree with the fact that it can’t be deemed a total failure yet, as 50 years from now, Iraq could be stable. My point of view though is that of an American, not an Iraqi, so selfishness is a factor. With this in mind, it’s probably a good time to point out that in terms of America dealing with other countries, I’m altruistic to the core – on the flip side though, in terms of America dealing with it’s own people, I’m not.
From the reading I did while serving in the Army, a time in my life when seven magazine subscriptions hardly occupied my time, the issues of National Review I remember most (seeing as how I would be directly involved were I to reenlist), were the essays that dealt with future military intervention. Upside is the basis for any such effort…all the talk of ‘liberation’, you can flush down the toilet (in fact! that post that disappeared on The Rolling Barrage was about how leftist venacular had taken on a preacher’s tone of idealism in the face of logic and reason), this falls into that category in my mind. Because when liberation is discussed, all I can think about is how this same publication that discussed the upside of regime change in Iraq took on an extremely negative tone in regards to Somalia and our intervention in the Balkan region.
In both of those cases, as well as the situation now in Sudan, ‘liberation’ is truly the prize, but keep in mind that because that is the number one ‘upside factor’, it’s not in our nation’s interest to devote money and lives. I AGREE WITH THIS. I served through the Bosnia-Kosovo campaigns, and what happened there was what HAS TO happen in any such effort…a real coalition of countries acting as one, leaving no one nation solely responsible for mistakes in planning, logistics, etc.
My true feeling when it comes to ‘WHY’ the neoconservatives were so down on those missions is the fact that when it came to the spoils (reconstruction contracts, money for logistics, transport, etc.), the United States didn’t have a guaranteed revenue stream…not like we do in Iraq, where favored corporations were awarded contracts with little to no consideration given to cost, an audit trail or oversight. Indeed, the crimes of Cunningham serve as an example of how ‘wide open’ things trully were.
So you’ve got two factors as I see it:
1. Upside (has to be more than ‘we’re going to liberate these people’)
2. American business will profit from the operation
The Iraq plan was constructed during the decade prior to 2003, and in terms of what might happen ‘if’…much was assumed, in fact, if you just take the statements made to Congress by Rumsfeld and Wolfwicz in the runup, it’s plainly obvious that the thinking on this had incorporated little to no contingency planning whatsoever.
As for WMDs…my personal belief is that by the time of the first Gulf War, Saddam’s chemical weaponry (purchased from…) was dated. The shelf life of these chemical weapons had long past ‘ripe’, and the fact that we have more Gulf War Syndrome and not liquified flesh…I think it serves as evidence that Saddam’s lethality was in market decline in comparison with what he unleashed on the Iranian army. We know for a fact that he was trying to develop a nuke, and we also know for a fact that his own engineers and scientists worked against him…so we also know for a fact that he was incapable of producing one following his failed takeover of Kuwait.
That being said, the only thing that allowed him to retain power was the ‘threat’…the possibility that he did have more of the stuff he used on the Iranians, Shiites and Kurds…each group proceeding with caution because:
1. They knew he wasn’t afraid of using them on real people, his own even
2. There was no way of knowing whether he still had them
This tactic SHOULD seem familiar to us all, as it was this very same fear that kept the USSR from attacking us.
This dynamic is the reason Iran wants a nuke. It’s the threat of it’s use that creates security, and after living next to Saddam for 25 years after what he did to them, it’s their intent now to take a page out of Saddam’s own playbook.
Ultimately, it’s none of our business. It only seems to become our business, not when people are being slaughtered/oppressed, but instead when a chance for immediate or future profit is identified. Morally it’s wrong in my book, and aside from that, it’s not in our nation’s long term interests to continue along in this way.
France and England learned how foolish this type of foreign policy is in the long run…I hope we don’t have to suffer much longer before we too realize that an empire is first and foremost, something for others to work towards destroying.
I agree with your summary of an Empire, I loathe the thought of it though we arrive at consensus from opposite ends.
However I disagree with you on the reason why Iran wants a nuclear weapon. No nation has ever developed an atomic weapon that had a specific race in mind that they wished to liquidate.
As much as I despise socialism the Soviets were, on their off days, rational about nukes. The Iranians are not.
I want to throw out a point that I had talked about in the past with regard to Iraq and Islam. I think all these details about WMDs, Kuwait, Al-Queda taining camps and all that jazz is the position of being too close to the trees to see the forest.
I feel that this environment we have today is the reignition of the islamic goal os worldwide sharia. Islam has been on the offensive build-up since the 60’s and what we are seeing today is the simmering volcano exploding once again.
Anyone who takes an indepth look at the “canon laws” of Islam, the texts that decipher the Koran into applicable laws, will clearly see that islam sees itself as the ruler of the world. It is just a matter of converting, dhminni-ing and killing all non-muslims.
What Bush has been able to do is both show that Clinton was a rare coward in American politics and that Islam will have to pay a lot more in blood and capital than they expected to in their quest for world domination. It doesn’t matter what Saddam’s religious status was, it doesn’t matter what happened in 1948 or when Isreal was resurrected.
Everywhere in the world there is terrorism or civil conflict you will find Islam pulling the strings, with the exception of the IRA in Ireland. Serbia, Phillipines, and anywhere with the last letters STAN in the name, Islam is on the march.
Maybe all Bush has done is buy us time before the next world war.
Right:
we are transitioning into a world war. You are correct that Bush bought us time but I only hope it was enough.
We are in a World War now folks that could last for years. Islamofascists want to make the world ISLAM. That is their aim pure and simple. Our aim must be to defeat it !
Suicide bombings will NEVER accomplish their mission. Suicide bombing will NEVER manage to leave a disaster like Dresden in it’s wake.
Seriously, without an air force OR a navy, how on earth could Muslims enslave anyone?
Call it what you will…I call it a series of criminal investigations, then, subsequent ‘shock and awe’.
Have any of you considered the possibility that the war was really about the U.S. dollar as THE currency for use in oil markets?
Saddam was selling oil to buyers in euros rather than dollars. Both the International Petroleum Exchange, and the NYMEX both sell oil only in U.S. dollars (petrodollars). Iran has talked about doing the same thing.
Part of me believes much of the hubbub going on with Iran right now is more about this possibility than with nukes. Let’s face it, if they wanted nukes as weapons they could buy them.
Because oil is traded in dollars it creates global demand for dollars. This helps to fund our deficit lifestyle as a nation. A reduction or collapse in demand for dollars would be a devastating blow to our (the U.S.) economy.
Anyway just a thought. I don’t think any of us know the true reasons for the invasion. Without knowing this it is impossible to tell whether or not it has been a success. Was Bush sending a signal to oil producers that we won’t tolerate a change in the petrodollar? If so, the entire thing could be judged a success.
Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse
I’m not too scared about Islamofascists. I’m a bit more frightened of the average moderate (insert nationality or religious ideology here) and what they may become when critical resource shortages begin to take true affect.
It’s easy to care about your fellow man when all is right in YOUR world.
This is speculative. I have looked at it the past two days and can’t find anything to substantiate the theory. that is not to say it isn’t true-or that it does not have an element of truth in it.
Shall keep looking.
It’s out there, but I’d imagine it’s hard to find. Why? Watch the movie ‘Network’…some tidbits are certainly scary enough to care about, and some will be handled behind the scenes…let’s hope, all of us, that this one belongs to that group.
Worst case scenario…Iran announces this, the global media runs with it, within days the United States attacks.
At that point, the ‘we wanted to liberate the poor oppressed people’ line goes right out the window, and those who denied that this was primarily about oil have something else to rationalize…Rush Limbaugh’s ratings will be abnormally high following this.
I’d rather it never happen.
WASHINGTON – speculative…but I don’t think I’m Fox Mulder or anything by writing this. I’m hunkering down through spring because of the uncertainty.
Not in a bomb shelter in the back yard…well, at least not on Sundays…
but I will say this…masking tape is KILLING America!
(cue – let ‘er rip)
Agreed. It is completely speculative. But it points out rather clearly our real weakness as a nation. A seemingly minor shift in international banking policy or energy-trading policy could bring us (the U.S.) to our knees before we (the U.S. public) even knew what hit us.
And as for speculation. Many individuals speculated that things would not go smoothly in Iraq. And for that matter many many doomsayers speculated that New Orleans’ levees would fail one day. If you’re not speculating about things, then you are not thinking.
I agree
A civilization can be overcome by ideas as well as arms. Yasser Arafat once said that one way to overcome Israel was by Palestinians having a higher birth rate than the Jews. Once the fox is in the henhouse it’s too late to verbalize about it.
Fox..I mean Chris:
I just don’t buy it. There is very little to support it.
Captain:
It’s fine to speculate. It does require thinking. For instance there is speculation that that UFO’s built the pyramids. That is thinking.
Critical thinking is different-one has to use facts, logic, and reason.
I’m not too scared about Islamofascists. I’m a bit more frightened of the average moderate (insert nationality or religious ideology here) and what they may become when critical resource shortages begin to take true affect.
A moderate muslim is not like a moderate Republican or Democrat. It all depends on the reference point. There were “moderates” in the Nazi party who thought it was a waste to kill the Jews, a great source of slave labor.
Moderate Islam believes that the world is there but they should just breed the rest uf the world into submission and conquer with sheer numbers. The difference between radical islam and moderate islam is the radicals want a world war while the moderates want to dominate the world with only partial violence.
Even liberal islam believes that the world should be islamic, just a watered down version of the Sharia. Look up Dhimmi and you’ll see what I mean.
Because oil is traded in dollars it creates global demand for dollars. This helps to fund our deficit lifestyle as a nation. A reduction or collapse in demand for dollars would be a devastating blow to our (the U.S.) economy.
The Dollar is just a benchmark, it doesn’t mean that you can only buy oil with U.S. Currency, it just means you have to calculate, for example, how many Pesos are in a dollar so you know ho many Pesos you need.
Seriously, without an air force OR a navy, how on earth could Muslims enslave anyone?
Well, first of all, every major and median newspaper in America was intimidated out of there free speech rights. The media, who shits a brick at the thought of having to wait 18 hours on a weekend to hear about a hunting accident, is afraid to write anything but the glories of islam.
Europe can’t censor the media fast enough and American colleges are firing editors left and right. Stalin would be proud. Castro is pissed we are ripping off his moves. Hugo Chaves is yelling “dictatorship was his idea” and liberals “stole it”!!! Islam is aready training the rest of the world how fellate them just right.
The Taliban and their 4th grade education are going to Yale!!!!
Farrakahn got the BET Psycho award!!!!
Even Ted Rall is afraid if Islam, or just likes the anti-American stance.
Call it what you will…I call it a series of criminal investigations, then, subsequent ’shock and awe’.
Fine, a para-military group well organized organizations, financed by over a dozen foregn governments, armed with a boat load of military hardware, ammunition and explosives are “commiting crimes” against Western military and civilian targets in an effort to force our government to surrender to their unconditional demands of financial gain and political control over our society.
What crimes are they committing then, unlawful assembly?
This sounds an aweful lot like what Germany did in France.
I don’t think this is correct. I think that in order to trade energy futures, your currency must first be converted to dollars. This usually requires that countries purchase large quantities of dollars not only for “as-needed” energy transactions, but also to keep in reserve in order to hedge against future currency value fluctuations. I know ICE Futures (in London) requires dollars, and I believe NYMEX is the same. In fact there is some SPECULATION that the UK hasn’t adopted the euro specifically because it might cause pandemonium with this London-based energy exchange. If there was no need for a common currency in commodity markets, then there might not be a need for separate currency markets (where currencies are bought and sold).
The jury is still out on the UFO/pyramid connection, but you may be on to something there.
Yes, I understand the difference between critical thinking and speculation. Thanks for the explanation.
If you are interested in looking into the matter a little more indepth you can look up either IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. (ICE), or the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). These are the two predominant global energy markets. If you’re buying energy it is most likely your buying it through one of these exchanges.
What are you talking about? Have you ever met a Muslim in their home country (funny that you capitalize Dem, and Repub, but didn’t capitalize Muslim)? I’ve only met Muslims here (in the U.S.), and they seemed perfectly accepting of my western way of living. In fact I was never even solicited to convert (I wish I could say the same of my Mormon neighbors).
And this is different from Christianity in what way? Have you ever read Revelations. The future isn’t too bright for non-believers. It involves pain, and torture by wasp-like creatures for prolonged periods of time (months). Check it out if you haven’t already.
I have asked around about this-emailed an economist-and from what I gather this is bunk.
However – It sounds plausible which is exactly my point with UFO’s.
I’m impressed your economist friend actually committed to an answer. Usually they say “it all depends.”
Probability aside, currency destabilization is our Achilles heel. And energy markets expose the heel.
Actually he is not a friend but someone I write to when I am stuck…
Our achilles heel is focusing on issues that take away our attention from radical Islam, genocide, and Vince Young scoring a two on the wonderlic… 🙂
Cheers
Have you ever met a Muslim in their home country (funny that you capitalize Dem, and Repub, but didn’t capitalize Muslim)?
If you are going to be checking my spelling and punctuation, you are going to be pretty busy. And just which country is a Muslim’s home country?
What does meeting a Muslim in another country have to do with anything? Are you saying that no one outside the U.S. understands what free speech is until they come to America and talk to an American? Besides, I prefer to paroose the fficial texts to listening to a biased person’s point of view.
A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad Oxford-University Press 1955
N.J. Dawood, The Koran-Penguin
Joseph Schacht, An Introduction to Islamic Law-Oxford Clarendon Press 1982
Bat Ye’or, The Dhimmi:Jews and Christians Under Islam-1985, The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam-1996, Islam and Dhimmitude:Where Civilations Collide-2001 All under Fairleigh Dickinson University Press
A good start…
And this is different from Christianity in what way? Have you ever read Revelations.
Kerry and Kennedy are Catholic and just about every stance they take conflicts with what they “believe” according to the church. Also. the book of revelation doesn’t go into a crowded market and explode.
future isn’t too bright for non-believers. It involves pain, and torture by wasp-like creatures for prolonged periods of time (months). Check it out if you haven’t already.
Huge difference, in Revelations it is God doing the killing, today it is Muslims performing what they want God to do. They make God’s decisions for him. Huge difference.
So what? What’s your point? Are any Christian politicians in Washington D.C. any different? They’re all the same, just painted blue or red.
What do you think Christians would do if a Muslim army was parked in their backyard blowing up churches and parishioners and calling it “collateral damage”. Under the banner of religious righteousness it is easy to justify just about any kind of horrific act.
My mistake. See here I am defending Muslims and I’ve shown my own bias against them. I meant had you ever talked with a Muslim in a Middle-Eastern country that they called home. I haven’t.
I’m very impressed that you’ve gained so deep an understanding of the modern Muslim by simply perusing some “official texts”. So, what texts would you recommend a Muslim peruse so that they could have so complete an understanding of the “average” American?
I’m not interested in spell-checking you, I don’t have that kind of time. I just thought it was interesting; your choice in capitalization.
Gosh, if you had lived 50 years ago you would have been very popular by saying…
Our achilles heel is focusing on issues that take away our attention from communism, genocide,
Professional bowler?
Cheers
Who blew up the WTC? How are Christian minorities treated in Arab nations? Ask the Copts in Egypt. How have Bahais been persecuted in Iran? Islam sees no difference between church and state. The last time that I checked the majority of terrorist attacks in the world in the last 30 years were perpetrated by …? You guessed it – Muslims !
And I would have been right 50 years ago…just as I am today.
50 years ago socialism was rampant and over 75 million people were to head to their graves behind the walls of the Soviet Union and China.
Today I am right because it stares us in the face…unlike theories that are half baked.
19 Saudis right? Who blew up the Oklahoma federal building?
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. Communism and socialism are both still around, just ask any Chinese person living in China. China is not successful because they are communists. They are successful because they stuck to a plan, and didn’t burden themselves with conditional loans from the western international banking community. Heck, we live in a democratic socialist nation ourselves. We have an entitlement system of taxation and social services. Six years of “conservative” leadership hasn’t changed that. Take a look at where Latin America is headed. They are not becoming more capitalistic.
In 50 years the war on terror will be over, but there will still be terrorism. Terrorism is not an organized entity. It is a tactic employed by those with inferior military capabilities.
What do you think Christians would do if a Muslim army was parked in their backyard blowing up churches and parishioners and calling it “collateral damage”. Under the banner of religious righteousness it is easy to justify just about any kind of horrific act.
If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. So, if you don’t want to take collateral damage then don’t attack America.
My mistake. See here I am defending Muslims and I’ve shown my own bias against them. I meant had you ever talked with a Muslim in a Middle-Eastern country that they called home. I haven’t.
My post was poorly worded. I meant to say that I trust the offical islamic law texts over the testimony of a Muslim in his oun country. I did not mean to call you biased at all, but my poorly worded post could be read that way.
My point is the proof is in the pudding. I’m getting all freaky cliche’ all of a sudden. Islam tends to speak one way and act another so I look at the actions and laws and ignore the appologists and conspiracy theorists.
I’m very impressed that you’ve gained so deep an understanding of the modern Muslim by simply perusing some “official texts”. So, what texts would you recommend a Muslim peruse so that they could have so complete an understanding of the “average” American?
This isn’t about beer, pizza and football games. Muslims can study the bible to gain an insight into Christianity. The Vatican has a huge volume on Canon Laws so muslims could learn about Catholicsm that way. They can read the constitution to better understand America.
Right:
Iraq did not attack America. Certain people were afraid that they might so they invaded. It is hard to justify collateral damage based on your fears
You’re an ideologist. You want to know about America? Watch our TV and movies. With 150 channels you can see just about every aspect of our western society… health, real estate, domestic violence, military, politics, law enforcement, dating, weather, history, science, music, art, substance abuse, religious shows, talk shows.. and on and on and on. This is America, presented to you in HD.
If we were serious about Iraq, we should simply have positioned communications satellites broadcasting 1000 channels of pure American cable programming (translated into Arabic) over them, air dropped millions of satellite dishes and televisions, and let our lifestyle and freedoms slowly win them over. And when Saddam rounded up all the satellite dishes and destroyed them, we just go in and air drop some more. Repeat until Iraqi’s get tired of having their dishes destroyed and rise up in rebellion.
And, if in the end, our broadcasted lifestyle did not win them over then nothing would.
Iraq did not attack America. Certain people were afraid that they might so they invaded. It is hard to justify collateral damage based on your fears
Yes, and Charles Manson never killed anyone but he’s a psycho and people he knows did kill people. Saddam was the weakest player of all the links to al-queda, take out Saddam and we have a chunk of land to stage our anti-terrorism program. All Islam has to do is play nice with the rest of the world and there won’t be any collateral damage. It’s all up to Islam.
Watch our TV and movies. With 150 channels you can see just about every aspect of our western society…
You are saying the TV and Movies mirror reality??? I’ve been hiking in the mountains and I have yet to see a couple of gay cowboys “roughing it” out on the range. I’ve never seen a real life Gilligan and the FBI hasn’t investigated alien sightings at my work. There is no unstable co-worker mumbling “I believe you have my stapler” and there are no blonde vampire slayers or brunette warrior princesses in my town.
TV is to reality what Louis Farrakahn is to racial harmony. I’ve seen the West Wing and in reality, Democrats can’t make a coherent message or an accurate policy argument to save their lives.
Captain Menace:
I really liked your comments up until this one. Now you have gone round the bend. I do hope you come back.
I never mentioned reality. I was talking about the American experience. And for what it’s worth I don’t think most Americans have a realistic view of what life is like for most of the world. Myself included. American TV presents a much more accurate picture of American morals, ideas, and beliefs than reading the bible or the constitution. I don’t think that’s necessarily a good thing, but I think it’s the truth.
Big deal. My best friend is gay (still hasn’t come out to me), and I never saw it. My wife found out and told me. I’ve worked with gay commercial fishermen, and would never have expected it. They are out there whether you see them or not.
Or maybe at some point you’ll be able to understand my point of view. I’m not entirely sure what your point of view is. I haven’t read enough of your posts to have an idea.
Kark didn’t Saddam attack the Kuwait ,the Kurds and the Shias in Iraq? And let’s not forget the Iraq-Iran war!! This man is a nut case and he needs to be hung from a lamppost – and that would be too good for him. Why don’t you just say it – you loathe America like a lot of Europenas do.
Right:
The problem is that their were several reasons given for invading Iraq depending on what day Bush was talking. Iraq was very well contained and did not have the means to threaten anyone, so the “immenent threat argument fails. If the goal was to remove Hussien why not handle it like Noriega? If the idea was to create a model democracy in the middle east then we need to rebuild the country and do it well. As for creating a foothold in the middle east all that has happened is the rest of the middle east has a blue print for defeating a once powerful milatary.
Paul:
I love America and would like it back. A country that participates in torture and is fast becoming third world economy(look at the raised debt cieling) is not the America that I know.
As for taking out Saddam Hussien their are plent of bad people out there and unfortunately you cannot take all of them out. If most people knew the cost of getting rid of Hussein I doubt they would have gone along with the war. If the only goal was to get rid of Hussein why are we still in Iraq.
Karl: You are hoping for Utopia-there has never been a nation that did not use extraordinary measures in times of war and conflict. Period.
It is obvious that some people spend far too much time watching television and not enough time studying the course of history. The United States in not perfect. Use your own bollocks to stand up to people who are systematically mutiliating women – use your butter sharp perception to look at other countries and tell us..in some measurable way…why you feel the way you do?
You sound like the NC’s in Britain prior to WWII. Utopian notions about how things SHOULD be do not square with the way things are-War is terrible but even more terrible is a decaying nation full of people who would rather give free reign to every militant posing as an “oppressed” person whilst those same people are beheading men and women who do not conform to Islam’s view of the world.
It must be a terrible feeling to know that you tacitly support regimes that amke your own country look like a country club. However, for those feelings to arise one must have insight…
Karl-What is your plan for America? You want it back??? So tell us, without using the standard jargon, how you would like us to be economically, politically, and in the conduct of foreign policy – and responses like “We should be fair” are considered jargon. How should we approach France now that her economy is in a tremendous downturn? Where should we base troops to project the force abroad that is necessary?
How do we deal with militant Islam? What is your idea of good monetary policy? Interest rates? Do we restrict free trade or enhance it? How about vouchers? Should we support the Tamil tigers? Oppose them? How?
Should we restrict food imports? How do we tackle food exports? Immigration reform? Farm subsidies? Should the National Fire Academy in Maryland be funded? Should the states fund it?
Election reform? Campaign finance?
There is a lot to consider when one states I want America “back”. Pray tell us what you would do? America is more than saying I want things to be fair…
Washington:
We should probably start by following the constitution it got us this far. You know lets stop trying to interject religion into government and we should stop spying on our own people.
America has been at war before and we did not resort to torture, nor did we resort to domestic spying. Maybe we need to realize that debt is a problem and raise taxes to pay for all the spending or really reduce spending. The problem with using debt to fund government is it does not give a realistic idea of the costs of a policy.
If a natural dissaster occurs it would be nice to see people try to help not just runaround and point fingers. If terrorists attack the country why not fix the holes they go through instead of attacking a country that had nothing to do with 911?
Most the questions you ask our not black and white they require compromise, our currrent president and his backers do not seem to compromise well so the US winds up floating aimlessly and becoming more of a third world country by the day.
OK, so you equate the political correctness of the media with ‘subjugation’? That even though they haven’t enough troops, planes, ships, artillery or bombs to take and hold a portion of the United States – simply the fact that our media decides not to reprint a cartoon offensive to Muslims – that they’re somehow one in the same?
That’s usefull politically, but requires one to look at it the same way Islam looks at the west. Whereas our culture is seen as an ‘attack’ to them when they’re exposed to it…just as you perceive political correctness as an ‘attack’ of something that is yours.
In both cases, the aggrivation is indicative of something else, something not necessarily associated with the culture or cartoon or anything else. It’s the ‘idea’ that Islam is capable of more than it really is…that’s what’s valuable, the notion that they ‘COULD’ do such and such…whether or not it’s realistic.
Which in the case of those millions in the Middle East who can’t find work…hell, they can’t even control their own countries, overthrow the royal families…they’re electing Hamas, torching their neighbor’s possessions and looking to the sky for something that’s never going to come.
They can’t even take care of themselves, let alone take over another country.
I’m sorry, but there’s a HUGE difference between Americans deciding not to make fun of Muhammad, and Americans living in Islamic concentration camps on US soil.
Washington:
Part of the problem as I see it is that we cannot judge the policies of the Bush admin becuase they are not administered in a competent manner. Do you really think Rumsfeld has done the best job possible in Iraq. Maybe the war was a good idea(I don’t think so) but we will never know becuase of the inept way it was prosecuted. One thing is for certain, one of the reasons for going to Iraq was to stop torture, it is just as bad when we do it.
After 911 the US had an opportunity to bring the world together. How many countries helped with Afganistan? If the US had made Afganistan into a model democracy, instead of a model opium producer, their may have been an example of what can be done. Instead the US insisted on invading Iraq, alienating most of the world and losing credibility, and then proceeded to lose the war.
Without competence good policy is meaningless, right now the government is incompetent so whatever they want to do is pointless.
Our policy on France…I don’t know. Should we help them out? Only in exchange for something. We should base our troops in countries where it’s not going to be an issue for the people of said country…meaning, for the sake of our troops safety (on and off post), the safety of our equipment, and the future – not only in terms of our ability to deploy quickly, but in terms of a backlash like 9/11.
Force militant Islamics to actually lead once they gain power…meaning, as with Hamas, do not afford their leaders the opportunity to cover their own failures by pointing to examples where foreign intervention manages to alleviate responsibility. IE: Don’t make a diplomatic mistake…sit back and allow these leaders to make their own beds.
Militant Islam can be defeated by forcing it’s leadership to realize first hand that Allah isn’t going to help them balance the budget, grow the economy or educate their population. Let’s say Hamas accomplishes nothing internally during their time in power…now, without examples like the prison break to distract the Palistinian public, they’ll have to actually prove they can GOVERN. If they fail, then slowly but surely, the people of that region will begin to understand that religion will not ensure there’s clean water and electricity in their homes.
You create situations where Muslims naturally seperate government and religion out of necessity.
Our monetary policy should be to use interest rates as a way to set up speed bumps for the economy, meaning there’s less of a chance for inflated value in the stock market that cannot be justified later on, leading to financial ruin for some. We should evaluate how much it will cost to run our government for one year, three years, five years, ten, twenty, thirty, forty and fifty…this data should be distributed widely and it should show up on the nightly news periodically. Educate the public on the concept of income and spending, while also incorporating the dynamic of how much we borrow and from who.
The last thing this President or any other one, this Congress or any other one wants is for Americans to be as well versed in the economics of running a government as they are the difference between pro-choice and pro-life. Because that would force them to actually WORK.
On trade…we need tarrifs to balance the risk/reward when companies close up shop and move to a foreign country because the labor is cheaper. If an American company moves to South America and their stock price doubles as result, the US should get a piece of that winfall through the implementation of tarrifs paid to ship the products back into US stores. You don’t go overboard or make it a joke by having it be too low…you find the right ballance and apply it as equally as possible.
Foreign cars should include a tarriff that can be collected, with a set percentage of the proceeds going to improving infrastructure, money for research and whatever else (besides handouts and taxcuts) our automakers could use to become more competitive…not in terms of their stock price compared with Nissan, but in terms of the PRODUCT!
I’ll hit up the rest later…time to feed the boys.
Karl and Chris:
You haven’t answered how…you are stuck saying “Do this or do that”—-how?
For example Chris – How do you convince the unions, the automakers, and the public that tariff’s are a good idea. What is your approach to Congress? What would you do to offset the economic impact in the short run? SOLUTIONS not slogans.
Chris: Provide for me how you would orient foreign policy so that Islamic states want to seperate “Church and State.” Who do you approach and why that country first? What do tell our allies who oppose this action and how do you offset the economic and political impact your decision will have with our market friends?
I’m just looking for something more than a sentence that explains that an indepth understanding of issues is present. Throw me one indepth explanation that does not require the magical cooperation of the Congress, the people, the markets, and so on…Just one!
Karl: It’s easy to say we should follow the constitution-What do you suggest and in what areas? What are you ready to bargain away to achieve what you want? This isn’t a board game-to get you have to give and build political capital—Utopian political ideas only work on blogs. Throw me something!
On church and state…an evolved understanding of what type of government is most effective will naturally incorporate this aspect. Holy men do not automatically make competent state leaders, and vice-versa…well, just look at Delay and Cunningham.
My point is that as long as we don’t mess with the formula too much with Hamas in power, they’ll be forced to evolve naturally away from what’s right for the mosque and towards what’s right for the people. This is a natural thing that can happen as long as those politicians who fail aren’t given a string of excuses for their failure…ie, ‘the government is failing due to international meddling in Palistinian matters’
You sure don’t promote democracy by handing over billions of dollars to tyrants in exchange for oil! That’s the falacy we’re asked to eat happily…that Iraq is a country that can govern itself, but Saudi Arabia is fine as it is. I can’t stand the inconsistency…and it’s all based on our desire for oil.
As for the tarrifs…it’s more about what you DON’T DO than what we do from here. NAFTA and CAFTA are in place, so the ship has sailed as far as this hemisphere goes. Both Clinton and Bush thought of the CEO first and the American people second when they pushed these deals through.
Chris-I don’t like Delay but that is a cheap shot. I would think that comparing him to men who ORDER the mutilation of women’s genitals, place death bounties on the heads of authors etc.. is a bit much. We are talking about Islamic nations but you can’t get the GOP out of your mind.
So don’t mess with the formula while hamas is in power and we will see change for the better. What should Israel do if Hamas continues attacks? Wait until the formula is right? How do you sell that to the American People, the Congress, the Israeli lobby…rememeber you are making the decisions but you have to take all of this into account. Please thrill me with your acumen.
I said something like ‘holy men don’t naturally make good leaders – vice versa – (elected leaders don’t naturally make holy men)’
Nothing about the mutilation of genitals…just that unspoken explaination of ‘vice versa’.
—If Hamas continues to attack. When that takes place, was it a rogue element or do we assume every Muslim who commits a murder against a Jew is acting on orders from up top?
First try to distinguish one from the other…something I don’t think is or will be done at all if a bomb goes off. If it’s impossible, then proceed with caution, however retaliation is dealt out. We know that the Israeli leaders will make decisions sometimes to prove to their people they have cahones…the jail break is a good example.
My thought is that as (if) Hamas changes in some way in order to carry out their ‘real work’ running the government, there will be a number of crazies crying ‘sell-out, sell-out, Allah something or other, death to blah blah blah’ and violence will be the result. Does this dynamic enter into the decision of whether or not other countries intervene?
From this point there (it seems to me) a number of scenarios where word of mouth, an incident or two, and some bad quotes from an unqualified government official could turn this election of Hamas into a dose of the same shit that’s been going on there forever…
Truth being, there were elections, and there will be more elections, hopefully forever. Will they be perfect? Of course not…hell, I’ve read that the bookstores in Palastine are selling out of stuff written by Bill Gates and Donald Trump, books on management, and it’s Hamas buying them.
This thing needs time and a hands-off period if anything is going to change.
Everyone put their set back in their pants, off of the negotiation table, and act like grown ups for a while. Talk to them like they’re children, or sub-human…nothing will change. Nothing will EVER change.
This is the petri dish, our theory of elected government growing in real time.
AND IF DEMOCRACY CAN TURN HAMAS INTO REAL LEADERS, THEN IT CAN WORK WITH JUST ABOUT ANYONE!
Is that the goal? Yes? Then leave these people the f*&k alone for a while and let them figure out how to do this. If they start kissing Israel’s ass (and as sick as it may be, anything less than saying they don’t belong will be viewed as that by those who elected them into office), they’ll be going against the grain in terms of public opinion within their own borders. They have to ween the population off of the crazy spigot they’ve been sucking on already for a long long time.
Just like people in Iraq have to learn on their own eventually that killing one’s neighbors is unacceptable – Palistinians have to learn that constantly ‘saying’ you’re going to kill all of your neighbors is the source of most of their problems.
Both countries could come out of all this in twenty years looking a lot better…BUT,
If the global community aims to constantly use their situation for their own purposes – OR – if the money is cut off to the point where Hamas is doomed to fail from the start…
Then who’s to blame? The crazy men of Islam who had to turn water into wine, or the overly-sensitive ‘world powers’ who couldn’t let go of their pride long enough to even allow it to work?
Let’s get real…we can’t think of this in terms of what you or I or most other Americans would be able to accomplish in their place…these are religious windbags leading an uneducated, poor country of people. That’s the hand they’ve been dealt…so it’s not going to happen overnight, especially if they’re constantly feeling like they’re pushed into a corner.
Chris you do not get it. In Islam there is NO distinction between church and state. Then too the “moderate Muslims” that we hear about have done little to take back their religion from Islamofascists. Are they scared or are they wanting the same thing – to make the world Islam? As for Hamas coming around to reason and democracy that is well nigh impossible. These people are bent on the destruction of Israel and brook no compromise. BC will win the ACC basketball title before Hams takes on a human face !
Chris,
I am looking for something in-depth on how you would go about affecting change if you were the US leader. Enough complaining about what should be…let’s hear your plan. Deal with the specifics and lets see how real-world meets “my theory”.
Still waiting for you or Karl to accept.