[Rumor]

Oh please, oh please, oh please

[Kevin]

Well this was a lame thread.

But I posted in it

[Dakar]

Before I looked in thread I knew this guy was starting too many threads for it to be good.

[Rumor]

I'll stop. Just found it humorous.

To actually see something like this for real would make me estacic.

[subego]

The cover says July 2004.

Has this already happened?

[Kevin]

That image has been posted a few times in here before. It was just as funny then.

It actually comes off as zealous cry-baby type of thing.

[Monique]

And since being President is too much for Cheney; he dies of a heart attack.

[Kevin]

Don't give up your day job Mon.

[Stradlater]

Wake me up when the funny is here...

[Spliffdaddy]

Suck it up liberals.

You've got three more years of Dubya.

Followed by four more years of Newt Gingrich.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Suck it up liberals.

You've got three more years of Dubya.

Followed by four more years of Newt Gingrich.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Rumor

I'll stop. Just found it humorous.

To actually see something like this for real would make me estacic.

To bad it prolly wun't make you more intellicic.

[Kevin]

[Jawbone54]

I'll never understand the left's absolute hatred of all things W.

He's basically a centrist socially. The only staunchly conservative position he takes seems to be national defense. Why the loathing?

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

To bad it prolly wun't make you more intellicic.

I was never aware that a typing error was a sure sign for lack of intelligence.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

I'll never understand the left's absolute hatred of all things W.

He's basically a centrist socially. The only staunchly conservative position he takes seems to be national defense. Why the loathing?

I'm not left or right. I think the political parties are wrong all the way around and do not have the best interest of the people on thier minds as they claim to. As for W's stance on national defense....let's just say invading other countries to bring them into the light of "democracy" isn't what I would call defense.

[ironknee]

isn't time a weekly mag?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Rumor

I was never aware that a typing error was a sure sign for lack of intelligence.

Your original post spoke to the issue of lack of intelligence better than I ever could. No, I was just pouncing on this headless chicken of a thread hoping to bring it down for good.

Oh, by the way, if it hasn't already been done, allow me to welcome you to the P/L!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Rumor

I'm not left or right. I think the political parties are wrong all the way around and do not have the best interest of the people on thier minds as they claim to. As for W's stance on national defense....let's just say invading other countries to bring them into the light of "democracy" isn't what I would call defense.

Only the least informed fuzzy brained liberal discounts the long term transformative effect of democratization.

Only the most narrow minded partisan would say there is only one way the US has or could benefit from our invading Iraq.

What say you?

[ironknee]

no no no...i hope it naver happens...it's bush. let him finish it...1,000 days or so left

[MinM]

Originally Posted by Rumor

As for W's stance on national defense....let's just say invading other countries to bring them into the light of "democracy" isn't what I would call defense.

Whatever you call it, it's a classically liberal approach to foreign policy, rooted in the traditions of such liberal minds as Immanuel Kant and Woodrow Wilson.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Monique

And since being President is too much for Cheney; he dies of a heart attack.

For once we agree on something, Monique. As bad as Bush is, Cheney would be many times worse.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Monique

And since being President is too much for Cheney; he dies of a heart attack.

Have you noticed that liberals are only touchy-feely when other liberals are concerned?
"HA HA HA! Cheney has health problems! I hope he drops dead! HA HA HA!"

Hilarious...

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Millennium

For once we agree on something, Monique. As bad as Bush is, Cheney would be many times worse.

Why do you say that? You might not like his agenda (whatever it might be) but I have no doubt his administration would be run like a well run business. It's too bad we won't have a chance to see.

[Maflynn]

I fail to see the humor in this, and I don't think its even remotely possible.

I think the presidant will have a new congress to worry about this fall and he'll have to deal with what may be a slimmer republican majority or worse (for him) a democrat majority in one or both the house and senate.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Only the least informed fuzzy brained liberal discounts the long term transformative effect of democratization.

And only (insert some sort of insult here) thinks applying democracy forcibly or abruptly, when corresponding civil liberties are missing in that particular country/culture, results in a democratic country.

Check it out yourself. Since the end of the Cold War, Democracy has often, or even usually, not resulted in Democracy. Look it up yourself. South Africa is probably one of the more shining successes, and as most will tell you its come with more than a share of problems. Russia? Nope. Belarus? Obviously not. Egypt? Nope. Peru? Nope. Algeria? Heh. Pakistan? Nope. Turkey? Perhaps recently, although election results were blocked for years. Those are just some that come to mind.

I'm not saying democracy isn't a good thing. It's just that it's been shown to often result in poorer conditions for those in the country, and have a high level of corruption in the buracracy. Plus, strong, charismatic leaders are often voted in by the people, and then they end up suspending democratic institutions to give themselves more power (or keep themselves in power). It will be interesting to see how the Hamas in Palestine handle things there, as some people think they as well may resist any attempts ("democratic" or otherwise) to step down.

Anyways.

greg

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

And only (insert some sort of insult here) thinks applying democracy forcibly or abruptly, when corresponding civil liberties are missing in that particular country/culture, results in a democratic country.

Check it out yourself. Since the end of the Cold War, Democracy has often, or even usually, not resulted in Democracy. Look it up yourself. South Africa is probably one of the more shining successes, and as most will tell you its come with more than a share of problems. Russia? Nope. Belarus? Obviously not. Egypt? Nope. Peru? Nope. Algeria? Heh. Pakistan? Nope. Turkey? Perhaps recently, although election results were blocked for years. Those are just some that come to mind.

I'm not saying democracy isn't a good thing. It's just that it's been shown to often result in poorer conditions for those in the country, and have a high level of corruption in the buracracy. Plus, strong, charismatic leaders are often voted in by the people, and then they end up suspending democratic institutions to give themselves more power (or keep themselves in power). It will be interesting to see how the Hamas in Palestine handle things there, as some people think they as well may resist any attempts ("democratic" or otherwise) to step down.

Anyways.

greg

Tell you what, track the development of EVERY representative government in history and then show me ONE which you'd use as the model you'd hold up for Iraq to emulate.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

That...wasn't my point.

greg

[Spliffdaddy]

but it was still a good question.

take a stab at it. I'd like to hear the answer.

[Y3a]

Democracy doesn't work with the ignorant or uninformed. You need intellectual discussions and debates, and high quality analysis of the subjects and issues to make informed decisions. The representative democracy was 'supposed' to help in this manner, but the days of the smart and intellectual politician has been replaced by opportunistic and greedy scumbags. (Lawyers).

Good Schools where facts are taught instead of some "interpretations" of them, and honest grading is done, without tampering by any political entities is a good start.

I don't remember WHO said it but:

The kind of person who WANTS to be a politician is just the kind of person who should never get to be one.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Y3a

Democracy doesn't work with the ignorant or uninformed. You need intellectual discussions and debates, and high quality analysis of the subjects and issues to make informed decisions. The representative democracy was 'supposed' to help in this manner, but the days of the smart and intellectual politician has been replaced by opportunistic and greedy scumbags. (Lawyers).

Good Schools where facts are taught instead of some "interpretations" of them, and honest grading is done, without tampering by any political entities is a good start.

I don't remember WHO said it but:

The kind of person who WANTS to be a politician is just the kind of person who should never get to be one.

Great post, especially the quote at the end.

[Kevin]

Then how does one get politicians that don't want to be politicians?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

but it was still a good question.

take a stab at it. I'd like to hear the answer.

No...no, it wasn't a good question. It was a way of avoiding the point of my post.

"Traditional" representative governments often arrived there from earlier forms of leadership because a majority of its citizens realized, over time, that they wanted a form of democracy. Hand-in-hand with this Western democracy developed what's called "constitutional liberalism," or the rule of law and basic human rights.

However, forced or abrupt democracy, without corresponding constitutional liberalism, results in countries that are decidedly undemocratic. These "democratic" governments are depriving their constituents basic human freedoms and ignoring any democratic institutions which limit their power.

In other words, you're not producing democratic countries when you abruptly decide to elect a government through free and fair elections. So what's the point of charting the rise of representative governments throughout the world?!?! My point is you're not producing them anyway, unless you focus on the gradual liberalization of societies at the same time.

greg


ps. most of that is taken from an article I read a couple years ago, because I'm in a hurry and don't have time to articulate in my own words. It's by Fareed Zakiria, entitled "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy" from Foreign Affairs in Nov/Dec. 1997.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Then how does one get politicians that don't want to be politicians?

I suppose it'd be like a draft.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Then how does one get politicians that don't want to be politicians?

Sounds like a Monty Python routine for the Democrats looking for a candidate.

Man #1: Excuse me, but would you like to be a politician?

Man #2: I should say not! I haven't the skills. I'm not good with people, in fact I alienate and polarize them. I'm not photogenic. I'm inexperienced politically. Making decisions frightens me. I react impulsively. I'm not familiar with negotiating, would likely surrender at the drop of a hat or collude with potential enemies.

Man #1: Good. (An aside to his associate.) He'll do.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

No...no, it wasn't a good question. It was a way of avoiding the point of my post.

"Traditional" representative governments often arrived there from earlier forms of leadership because a majority of its citizens realized, over time, that they wanted a form of democracy. Hand-in-hand with this Western democracy developed what's called "constitutional liberalism," or the rule of law and basic human rights.

However, forced or abrupt democracy, without corresponding constitutional liberalism, results in countries that are decidedly undemocratic. These "democratic" governments are depriving their constituents basic human freedoms and ignoring any democratic institutions which limit their power.

In other words, you're not producing democratic countries when you abruptly decide to elect a government through free and fair elections. So what's the point of charting the rise of representative governments throughout the world?!?! My point is you're not producing them anyway, unless you focus on the gradual liberalization of societies at the same time.

greg


ps. most of that is taken from an article I read a couple years ago, because I'm in a hurry and don't have time to articulate in my own words. It's by Fareed Zakiria, entitled "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy" from Foreign Affairs in Nov/Dec. 1997.

http://www.fareedzakaria.com/article...democracy.html

There are a few times when a single article or essay results in my completely abandoning everything I knew (or thought I knew) about a subject in favor of everything presented in the piece before me.

Off the top of my head there have been three in the past two years.

al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology by Lee Harris

The Everlasting Hatred - The Roots Of Jihad by Hal Lindsey

and now this, The Rise of Illiberal Democracy by Fareed Zakaria.

Thanks Greg!

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!

And to your post, I would reply that the US is over there for as long as it takes to get Iraq straightened out. Zakaria's fine essay underscores one more reason why I have faith that we ARE doing things the right way in Iraq and that's precisely because the process of creating a foundation upon which a LIBERAL Democracy can grow IS a challenge.

In Germany and Japan we had completely defeated them militarily and they were in no position to object or resist the efforts toward a liberal representative form of government and it took years for them to recover.

In Iraq the process will be slower because many of the people are still resisting each other as well as our efforts.

But the President has made it clear, we're in it to win it.

EDIT: ADDED BONUS!!!! I just found an audio which acts almost as a Cliff Notes in summarizing at least portions of the book, "The Everlasting Hatred - The Roots Of Jihad" by Hal Lindsey

http://www.hallindseyoracle.com/audio.asp

On the left hand side under the red AUDIO section about mid-way down click on the speaker icon marked, "Myths of the Middle East." Then, if you like what you heard you might try clicking some of the other titles.

By the way, Hal Lindsey sold more books during the 1970's than ANY other author and he's still a best selling author, lecturer and has TV and radio shows.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Glad you liked it. He articulates the concept very well, and it certainly helped change the way I look at global political events.

greg

[porieux]

...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

I'll never understand the left's absolute hatred of all things W.

He's basically a centrist socially. The only staunchly conservative position he takes seems to be national defense. Why the loathing?

Are you kidding? A centrist socially? Look at his stance on abortion, gay marriage, stem-cell research, just go down the list. He has expressed his opinion on each of these issues. Mind you, the Republicans haven't attempted to enact legislation to accommodate their personal feelings yet, but it is very clear what his personal stance is.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by porieux

Left, right, up, down...no matter how you slice it he's a ****ing criminal
who has damaged this country in more ways than any of us could count.

And you REALLY think if that were true that the country would react the way it is and has been?

Just notice the way the nation literally erupted overnight in opposition to the UAE Ports deal.

If your fears were justified the furor we saw over the ports would be nothing compared to the unrest there would be across this land and it would continue to rise until he was gone!

You are unreasonably critical.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

And you REALLY think if that were true that the country would react the way it is and has been?

Just notice the way the nation literally erupted overnight in opposition to the UAE Ports deal.

If your fears were justified the furor we saw over the ports would be nothing compared to the unrest there would be across this land and it would continue to rise until he was gone!

You are unreasonably critical.

I wouldn't go as far as to call Bush a criminal, but he has certainly benefited from the incredibly strong Republican PR machine that the party has built up over the years. The Democrats on the other hand are relatively weak in this department right now. I think that several Democrats have some interesting and viable ideas and I'd like to think that most of us could agree on this, but for the most part the party consists of a bunch of fragmented individual messages.

The Republican PR machine, being as strong as it was, has helped the Republicans get away with a lot more than they would under a weaker party.

Look at all of the "stuff" the Republicans have gotten away with:

- The various scandals within the party: Abermoff, Delay, etc.

- Wiretapping

- Alleged abuse of prisoners (the recent news being force-feeding of prisoners)

- Cheney shooting that dude

- The Karl Rove/Valerie Plame thing

- Harriet Myers

- Katrina/Michael Brown

The list goes on and on. Now, I don't want to pick apart any of these issues - they have all been discussed at length in here. My point is simply that the strength of the Republican party has helped in dismissing each of these issues a *great* deal.

Perhaps it could be said that the strength of the Democrat party under Clinton helped them dismiss Whitewater and Lewinsky too, I don't know. However, it seems that Bush's second term in particular has been all about dismissing things, it seems to have been one mishap after another. I hope that he is able to get some stuff done without having to expend all of his effort fending off these mishaps.

I wasn't one to jump all over the Cheney shooting incident because I think that it just isn't something worth politicizing, but just looking at the most egregious of mishaps, it certainly seems like this party has had more than their fair share.

[besson3c]

I have a question for you Bush-defenders. This is another one of my tough, perhaps even rhetorical questions. I'd really appreciate it if you could attempt an answer though, for my benefit.

If things get progressively worse in Iraq, at what point will you want to jump ship and think that it is time for an altogether new strategy? I mean, surely there is some sort of line to cross, some sort of point which might make you rethink your stance on the overall strategy? I'm not attacking you or this strategy in this post, but I'm wondering if part of your disconnect from the left is simply where this line is drawn?

If your beliefs are that the goals are still, and will always be sound goals, what about the means to reach those goals? Have you ever re-evaluated them? Will you ever? I also wonder if part of the disconnect is simply a different idea of what these tactics ought to be?

[Spliffdaddy]

I'd give the Iraq thing another ten years before I start worrying.

PS, your list of scandals and abuses is actually just allegation and opinion - except for Cheney shooting that dude.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I'd give the Iraq thing another ten years before I start worrying.

I don't want US soldiers and Iraqi citizens (both soldiers and civilians) dying at the same pace they have been for another 10 years before the Bush Administration decided to re-evaluate its plans for "winning the peace" in Iraq.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I wouldn't go as far as to call Bush a criminal, but he has certainly benefited from the incredibly strong Republican PR machine that the party has built up over the years. The Democrats on the other hand are relatively weak in this department right now. I think that several Democrats have some interesting and viable ideas and I'd like to think that most of us could agree on this, but for the most part the party consists of a bunch of fragmented individual messages.

The Republican PR machine, being as strong as it was, has helped the Republicans get away with a lot more than they would under a weaker party.

Look at all of the "stuff" the Republicans have gotten away with:

- The various scandals within the party: Abermoff, Delay, etc.

- Wiretapping

- Alleged abuse of prisoners (the recent news being force-feeding of prisoners)

- Cheney shooting that dude

- The Karl Rove/Valerie Plame thing

- Harriet Myers

- Katrina/Michael Brown

The list goes on and on. Now, I don't want to pick apart any of these issues - they have all been discussed at length in here. My point is simply that the strength of the Republican party has helped in dismissing each of these issues a *great* deal.

Perhaps it could be said that the strength of the Democrat party under Clinton helped them dismiss Whitewater and Lewinsky too, I don't know. However, it seems that Bush's second term in particular has been all about dismissing things, it seems to have been one mishap after another. I hope that he is able to get some stuff done without having to expend all of his effort fending off these mishaps.

I wasn't one to jump all over the Cheney shooting incident because I think that it just isn't something worth politicizing, but just looking at the most egregious of mishaps, it certainly seems like this party has had more than their fair share.

That's one hell of a post there, besson3c!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I have a question for you Bush-defenders. This is another one of my tough, perhaps even rhetorical questions. I'd really appreciate it if you could attempt an answer though, for my benefit.

If things get progressively worse in Iraq, at what point will you want to jump ship and think that it is time for an altogether new strategy? I mean, surely there is some sort of line to cross, some sort of point which might make you rethink your stance on the overall strategy? I'm not attacking you or this strategy in this post, but I'm wondering if part of your disconnect from the left is simply where this line is drawn?

If your beliefs are that the goals are still, and will always be sound goals, what about the means to reach those goals? Have you ever re-evaluated them? Will you ever? I also wonder if part of the disconnect is simply a different idea of what these tactics ought to be?

I think there are two different models being used here by the Administration and the opposition.

The opposition is being pragmatic and using the lesson of Viet Nam, seemingly, in every phase of this military engagement. Some of the parallels almost beg for a direct comparison (Gulf of Tonkin & WMD's, Domino Theory & Islamic Global Domination, Guerilla Warfare & Terrorist Insurgency). Yet, no matter how close the two might seem the differences make the two situations COMPLETELY different.

I said the opposition is being pragmatic. But I am speaking from their POV. They THINK it is pragmatic because if a war isn't modeled along the lines of WWII or Gulf War I, then it HAS to be of the Viet Nam War variety. So, they respond to this war in a very practical, pragmatic way...by following the script. From the protests to the very assumptions about the results of protest and/or the war dynamics. But the problem is that there are at least two basic factors which makes the Iraqi War so different than Viet Nam that you may as well tear it up and throw the Viet Nam script out the window.

IMO, the differences are that Islam has a greater potential to disrupt American life than the Communists did.

This is true for a couple of reasons.

There is no one nation state of Islam. As we saw on 9/11, a terrorist attack leaves us no real target to respond to. Islam takes advantage of the West's weaknesses like a glove fitting a hand. It uses our technology against us by communicating on the internet via cell phone and watching satellite news networks. It listens to what our elected leaders and military commanders and observers are thinking and saying and doing and it makes use of our freedom of speech to spread information and misinformation and spark debates which only act in their favor in eroding support from a generation of Americans who would man the bulwarks in tomorrow's assaults on America.

This generation has been incompetently programmed to choose peace even when unilateral peace means death and defeat.

They've grown averse to ANY war, even war which might safeguard and preserve their way of life.

Never in the history of mankind has there ever been a group of people who can't be trusted to reliably act in their own self defense as this generation of young American liberals. Others are averse to war which doesn't use the WWII model which has us being first attacked and then absorbing the attack before responding.

That model is outdated and despite an ability to reprogram mainframe computers many young Americans are using an obsolete national defense model while their foes not only use the latest up to date versions of warfare, but our enemies actually use our outdated assumptions and indeed us as tools in their long term goals to conquer us and our young people are reluctant to shift out of party mode.

We can't easily absorb multiple simultaneous WMD attacks and so the Administration has been forced, for the first time, to adopt a pre-emption policy.

Another reason for a policy designed to prevent our enemies taking an initial offensive action is because the result of such an action could easily be much worse than our striking first.

If a M.E. or Persian Gulf nation launched a surprise or sneak attack on Israel the Israelis would be hard pressed to be restrained when that tiny nation of 13 million faced the real prospect of annihilation by any one, some or all of their Muslim neighbors following Iran's religious calls to violence.

If Israel justifiably responded to their enemies' attack the resulting call to jihad throughout the Islamic world would be certain and would certainly have the ability to unite most of the 1.5 billion Sunnis and Shiites and Wahhabi and Salafi and so called moderates and fundamentalists to escalate the conflict and all of us would become either victims or combatants.

And against the backdrop of that very realistic, close-at hand possibility Saddam Hussein led us to believe he was preparing to set off such a conflagration or empower those who could have with WMD'S no one could bet their life he did not possess.

In the model used by the Administration, the future of the world rests with a peaceful, prosperous and free Middle East and toward that end a successful Iraq is crucial.

We have committed ourselves to Iraq's success as much as one nation can be committed to another as the failure of Iraq would leave the USA forever wounded and mortally wounded, IMO.

That is the Administration's model, IMO.

How long should a man's legs be? Long enough to reach the floor.

How much time should you allow a child to learn to walk? As much time as it takes.

If Iraq fails then we will be grievously wounded. Everything in our future is tied to success in Iraq, IMO.

There is no turning back. We must not fail.

[aberdeenwriter]

bump

[besson3c]

Aberdeen,

I do think that the ME conflict could lead to a WWIII, but for a different set of reasons than you most likely.

I think that the war would be stemmed from a culture clash, and continued meddling from us and other countries in need of energy. You seem to think that the big concern is Al-Queda. This is where your complete paranoia comes in, IMHO. With a *reasonable* set of precautions put in place, Al-Queda's damage every few years can be quite limited and contained. I'm not so afraid about the terrorist under my bed, and like we discussed, terrorism cannot be completely eliminated no more than crime can be.

What concerns me far more than terrorism is this Iran thing. It's Israel and Palestine. It's people like several of us in here that seem completely fed up and unable to articulately channel their frustrations in a way that excludes innocent Muslims. I'm afraid that this growing sentiment will continue to grow around the world. Many of it may be justified to some extent, but then again, there is so much that we don't understand about the Islamic world. I don't have faith in the ability of Joe Six-pack to channel that frustration in a productive way. I'm afraid of a culture clash here at home, and I'm afraid this sort of thing will spread if it isn't already.

The converse is also true, I'm certainly afraid that the Islamic world will start (nationally) acting on their aggressions towards us, or some other ME country (the latter seems more likely) - not terrorist cells, but national warfare.

You can go on about American liberals being peace-niks all you want, but where is *your* strategy here? The truth is, you don't have a viable strategy. Nobody does. Little is understood, and little can be focussed since this problem has become so widespread and un-contained.

Now, you may have heard me harp on people making blanket statements about the Muslim world being "incompatible" - being "savages", etc. In order to make progress in this conflict, it must be understood that this is a *subset* of the population. Declaring war against the entire ME is just going to make things worse. Unfocussed agitation and rage likewise. This is a problem requiring wisdom and strategy - not brute force. To me, so much of the "plan" coming from the right is closer to brute force than a credible plan that just makes sense no matter how you look at it.

What is needed is a very sharp focus and understanding. Violence and aggression might become necessary (perhaps it already is), but wildly flailing our arms around looking for anything that remotely resembles this mystical world of Islam that most of us don't understand is *not* working in productive directions. I constantly question this nation rebuilding in the name of terrorism and other flimsy rationale... it's an interesting experiment, but not a viable one for dealing with the broader problem. We can't simply fix the problem by rebuilding each ME country. As every day passes, there is continued reason to believe that we have actually made things *worse* in Iraq with our "synthetic" intervention. Iraq needs to fix itself, there is no magic wand that we can wave.

In regards to our own defense, sometimes the best defense is the best offense, but that offense needs to be extremely focussed and well-thoughtout. The war in Iraq right now is not. There is little reason to have faith in our strategists who predicted that the war would cost under 2 billion and be done with by now. We just seem so disconnected with reality and lacking all sorts of credibility and wisdom (and I'm not saying the Democrats have all the answers... as Jon Stewart said in response to the Democrats as members of the Star Wars "dark side" - i.e. Nancy Pelosi as Darth Nancy: they're ewolks at best

I'm committed to us being in Iraq now, but I remain very unimpressed with the lack of a plan we have for Iraq, both past and present. Does it not bother you that pretty much every aspect of our strategy has failed?

- They'll welcome us in open arms
- It will cost 2 billion dollars
- Other under-estimations
- Implications that so much will be better once Iraq establishes their own government

I'm just not sure what the plan is there anymore, but I digress...

The other possible solution is for us to stop meddling entirely, let them battle amongst themselves. Of course, this will be very difficult to do as long as we depend on their oil.

However, as fun as it is to speculate and come up with essays explaining the problem, the truth is there is no simple solution here. It's very easy to point the finger. It's very easy to say that American liberalism is the problem. It's very easy to say that Saddam was the problem, or that Iraq was the problem, or that Iran is now.

What is clear to me is that we require a whole lot of wisdom that we are collectively lacking.

[besson3c]

bump

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Aberdeen,

I do think that the ME conflict could lead to a WWIII, but for a different set of reasons than you most likely.

I think that the war would be stemmed from a culture clash, and continued meddling from us and other countries in need of energy. You seem to think that the big concern is Al-Queda. This is where your complete paranoia comes in, IMHO. With a *reasonable* set of precautions put in place, Al-Queda's damage every few years can be quite limited and contained. I'm not so afraid about the terrorist under my bed, and like we discussed, terrorism cannot be completely eliminated no more than crime can be.

What concerns me far more than terrorism is this Iran thing. It's Israel and Palestine. It's people like several of us in here that seem completely fed up and unable to articulately channel their frustrations in a way that excludes innocent Muslims. I'm afraid that this growing sentiment will continue to grow around the world. Many of it may be justified to some extent, but then again, there is so much that we don't understand about the Islamic world. I don't have faith in the ability of Joe Six-pack to channel that frustration in a productive way. I'm afraid of a culture clash here at home, and I'm afraid this sort of thing will spread if it isn't already.

The converse is also true, I'm certainly afraid that the Islamic world will start (nationally) acting on their aggressions towards us, or some other ME country (the latter seems more likely) - not terrorist cells, but national warfare.

You can go on about American liberals being peace-niks all you want, but where is *your* strategy here? The truth is, you don't have a viable strategy. Nobody does. Little is understood, and little can be focussed since this problem has become so widespread and un-contained.

Now, you may have heard me harp on people making blanket statements about the Muslim world being "incompatible" - being "savages", etc. In order to make progress in this conflict, it must be understood that this is a *subset* of the population. Declaring war against the entire ME is just going to make things worse. Unfocussed agitation and rage likewise. This is a problem requiring wisdom and strategy - not brute force. To me, so much of the "plan" coming from the right is closer to brute force than a credible plan that just makes sense no matter how you look at it.

What is needed is a very sharp focus and understanding. Violence and aggression might become necessary (perhaps it already is), but wildly flailing our arms around looking for anything that remotely resembles this mystical world of Islam that most of us don't understand is *not* working in productive directions. I constantly question this nation rebuilding in the name of terrorism and other flimsy rationale... it's an interesting experiment, but not a viable one for dealing with the broader problem. We can't simply fix the problem by rebuilding each ME country. As every day passes, there is continued reason to believe that we have actually made things *worse* in Iraq with our "synthetic" intervention. Iraq needs to fix itself, there is no magic wand that we can wave.

In regards to our own defense, sometimes the best defense is the best offense, but that offense needs to be extremely focussed and well-thoughtout. The war in Iraq right now is not. There is little reason to have faith in our strategists who predicted that the war would cost under 2 billion and be done with by now. We just seem so disconnected with reality and lacking all sorts of credibility and wisdom (and I'm not saying the Democrats have all the answers... as Jon Stewart said in response to the Democrats as members of the Star Wars "dark side" - i.e. Nancy Pelosi as Darth Nancy: they're ewolks at best

I'm committed to us being in Iraq now, but I remain very unimpressed with the lack of a plan we have for Iraq, both past and present. Does it not bother you that pretty much every aspect of our strategy has failed?

- They'll welcome us in open arms
- It will cost 2 billion dollars
- Other under-estimations
- Implications that so much will be better once Iraq establishes their own government

I'm just not sure what the plan is there anymore, but I digress...

The other possible solution is for us to stop meddling entirely, let them battle amongst themselves. Of course, this will be very difficult to do as long as we depend on their oil.

However, as fun as it is to speculate and come up with essays explaining the problem, the truth is there is no simple solution here. It's very easy to point the finger. It's very easy to say that American liberalism is the problem. It's very easy to say that Saddam was the problem, or that Iraq was the problem, or that Iran is now.

What is clear to me is that we require a whole lot of wisdom that we are collectively lacking.

I'll give you a clue.

On Feb. 14th and 17th you had these late night TV viewing options.

Talk Talk: Who's on the late night shows tonight
Posted Feb 17th 2006 4:41PM by Bob Sassone
Filed under: ABC, NBC, CBS, Cable, Late Night, TV Royalty, Talent, Programming, PBS, Celebrities
Charlie Rose: Donald Rumsfield
The Late Show With David Letterman: Donald Trump and Bill Burr
Jay Leno: Samuel L. Jackson
Jimmy Kimmel Live: Shaun White, Steve Harvey, and Hawthorne Heights
The Late, Late Show With Craig Ferguson: Jason Biggs and Fiona Apple

Talk Talk: Who's on the late night shows tonight
Posted Feb 14th 2006 4:29PM by Bob Sassone
Filed under: ABC, NBC, CBS, Cable, Late Night, TV Royalty, Talent, Programming, PBS, Celebrities
Charlie Rose: Henry Crumpton and Joe Paterno
The Daily Show: Peter Tertzakian
The Colbert Report: Emily Yoffe (repeat)
The Late Show With David Letterman: Julianne Moore and The O'Jays
Jay Leno: Paul Reiser
Jimmy Kimmel: Sarah Silverman, Flavor Flav
The Late, Late Show With Craig Ferguson: Marlee Matlin and Lisa Loeb

You could choose to escape from the day's events and unwind or you could learn.

You could get some humorous take on events of the day by watching a show that stays on the air because it gets good ratings and it gets consistently good rating by delivering to it's audience that gruel they have demonstrated they can't get enough of...whining, bitching, kvetching, bemoaning, griping, satirizing and slamming the current administration and welcoming into their crowd those who ENJOY scratching their heads and walking around in circles, pacing the floor and wringing their hands that they haven't a clue about how to conduct this war and so the only thing to do is continue to complain.

OR...

You could have chosen to listen to the people who are the decision makers give some insight into their latest thoughts, ideas, and news developments and maybe you'd have a different opinion of the war and how it's ACTUALLY going.

You didn't choose the last option so your post reflects the uninformed and misinformed confusion and pessimism that The Daily Show relies on to keep you happy.

Change your viewing patterns and maybe you'll get a clue. Maybe you'll be able to go back to the Jon Stewart coffee klatsche and wow them with how much you've grown in such a short time. But the danger is that then you might start sounding like the conservatives...well informed, reasonable, reasonably optimistic and intelligent.

Decisions, decisions...

Ok. Here's a chance to make up for your previous choices.


Spend .99 to watch Charlie Rose interview Crumpton.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...3ACharlie_Rose

And I just checked and there was no limit on the Rumsfeld interview so it may be FREE to watch if you use this link.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...1043588532511&

But even if you have to spend a buck on each show, you will not be of the same opinion as you are now. I GUARANTEE IT!